Assignment in the discipline "philosophy". The problem of the method of scientific knowledge Bacon, the human mind should not be given wings
F. BACON
(Extracts)
There are four kinds of idols that besiege the minds of people. In order to study them, let's give them names. Let us call the first type the idols of the clan, the second - the idols of the cave, the third - the idols of the square and the fourth - the idols of the theater ...
Idols of the clan find their foundation in the very nature of man... for it is false to assert that man's feelings are the measure of things. On the contrary, all perceptions, both of the senses and of the mind, rest on the analogy of man, and not on the analogy of the world. The human mind is likened to an uneven mirror, which, mixing its own nature with the nature of things, reflects things in a distorted and disfigured form.
Cave idols essence of the delusion of the individual. After all, in addition to the mistakes inherent in the human race, everyone has their own special cave, which weakens and distorts the light of nature. This happens either from the special innate properties of each, or from education and conversations with others, or from reading books and from authorities before whom one bows, or due to a difference in impressions, depending on whether they are received by souls prejudiced and predisposed, or souls cold-blooded and calm, or for other reasons... That is why Heraclitus rightly said that people seek knowledge in small worlds, and not in the big, or in general, world.
There are also idols that appear, as it were, due to the mutual connection and community of people. We call these idols, referring to the fellowship and fellowship of people that gives rise to them, the idols of the square , people are united by speech. Words are established according to the understanding of the crowd. Therefore, the bad and absurd establishment of words besiege the mind in a wonderful way.
Definitions and explanations with which we are accustomed to arm ourselves and protect ourselves learned people, don't help the cause in any way. Words directly force the mind, confuse everything and lead to empty and countless disputes and interpretations.
Finally, there are idols that have taken root in the souls of people from various dogmas of philosophy, as well as from the perverse laws of evidence. We call them theater idols, for we believe that how many accepted or invented philosophical systems, so many comedies staged and played representing fictional and artificial worlds ... At the same time, we mean here not only general philosophical teachings, but also the numerous principles and axioms of the sciences, which received strength as a result of tradition, faith and carelessness ...
The human mind is not a dry light, it is held together by will and passions, and this generates in science what is desirable for everyone. A person rather believes in the truth of what he prefers ... In an infinite number of ways, sometimes imperceptible, passions stain and spoil the mind.
But to the greatest extent the confusion and delusions of the human mind come from inertia, inconsistency and deceit of the senses, for that which excites the senses is preferred to that which does not immediately excite the senses, even if this latter is better. Therefore, contemplation ceases when the sight ceases, so that the observation of invisible things is insufficient or absent altogether ...
The human mind, by its very nature, is drawn to the abstract and thinks the fluid as permanent. But it is better to dissect nature into parts than to abstract. This was what the school of Democritus did, which penetrated deeper than others into nature. One should study more matter, its internal state and change of state, pure action and the law of action or movement, for forms are inventions of the human soul, unless these laws of action are called forms ...
Some minds are inclined to revere antiquity, others are carried away by the love of newness. But few can observe such a measure, so as not to reject what was justly established by the ancients, and not to neglect what is rightly proposed by the new. This causes great harm to philosophy and the sciences, for it is rather the result of a passion for the ancient and the new, and not a judgment about them. Truth is to be sought not in the luck of any time, which is impermanent, but in the light of the experience of nature, which is eternal.
Therefore, one must give up these aspirations and see that they do not subdue the mind...
Man, the servant and interpreter of nature, does and understands as much as he has comprehended in its order by deed or thought, and beyond this he does not know and cannot.
Neither bare hand, nor the mind left to itself has little power. The work is done by tools and aids, which the mind needs no less than the hand. And just as the instruments of the hand give or direct movement, so do the instruments of the mind give directions to the mind or warn it.
Knowledge and power of man coincide for ignorance of the cause hinders action. Nature is conquered only by submission to her, and what in contemplation appears as a cause, in action appears as a rule.
The subtlety of nature is many times greater than the subtlety of feelings and reason, so that all these beautiful contemplations, reflections, interpretations are a meaningless thing; only there is no one to see it.
The logic now in use serves rather to reinforce and preserve errors based on conventional notions than to find a person. Therefore, it is more harmful than useful.
Syllogisms consist of sentences, sentences of words, and words are signs of concepts. Therefore, if the concepts themselves, which form the basis of everything, are confused and thoughtlessly abstracted from things, then there is nothing solid in what is built on them. So the only hope is in true induction.
Neither in logic nor in physics there is nothing sound in concepts. "Substance", "quality", "action", "suffering", even "being" are not good concepts; even less so - the concepts: “heavy”, “light”, “thick”, “rarefied”, “wet”, dry, “generation”, “decomposition”, “attraction”, “repulsion”, “element”, “ matter," "form," and others of the same kind. They are all fictional and poorly defined.
What is still open to the sciences belongs almost entirely to the realm of ordinary concepts. In order to penetrate into the depths and distances of nature, it is necessary to abstract both concepts and axioms from things in a more sure and careful way, and in general, a better and more reliable work of the mind is necessary.
By no means can it be that the axioms established by reasoning have the power to discover new cases, for "the subtlety of nature is many times greater than the subtlety of reasoning. But the axioms, duly abstracted from particulars, in their turn, easily indicate and determine new particulars and in this way the sciences are made effective.
The axioms now in use, spring from meager and simple experience and the few particulars which are commonly encountered, and nearly correspond to these facts and their scope. Therefore, there is nothing to be surprised if these axioms do not lead to new particulars. If, more than hopefully, an instance is discovered which was not previously known, the axiom is rescued by some whimsical distinction, while it would be truer to correct the axiom itself.
The knowledge which we usually apply in the study of nature, we shall, for the purposes of instruction, call anticipation of nature, because it is hasty and immature. The knowledge which we properly extract from things, we will call interpretation of nature.
The best of all proofs is experience.... The way people use experience now is blind and unreasonable. And because they wander and wander without any right path and are guided only by those things that come across, they turn to much, but move forward little. Even if they take up experiments more thoughtfully, with greater constancy and diligence, they invest their work in any one experiment, for example, Gilbert in a magnet, alchemists in gold. This way people act is both ignorant and helpless...
On the first day of creation, God created only light, devoting the whole day to this work and not creating anything material on that day. In the same way, first of all, from a variety of experience, one should extract the discovery of true causes and axioms, and one should look for luminous, and not fruitful, experiments. Correctly discovered and established axioms arm practice not superficially, but deeply, and entail numerous series of practical applications...
In all sciences we meet with the same trick, which has become commonplace, that the founders of any science turn the impotence of their science into a slander against nature. And what is unattainable for their science, they, on the basis of the same science, declare it impossible in nature itself ...
Those who practiced the sciences were either empiricists or dogmatists. Empiricists, like an ant, only collect and are content with what they have collected. Rationalists, like the spider, produce cloth from themselves. The bee, on the other hand, chooses the middle way: she extracts material from garden and field flowers, but arranges and changes it according to her ability. The true work of philosophy does not differ from this either. For it does not rest solely or predominantly on the powers of the mind, and does not deposit in the mind untouched the material drawn from natural history and from mechanical experiments, but changes it and processes it in the mind. And so, one should put good hope in a closer and more indestructible (which has not been so far) union of these abilities - experience and reason.
Nevertheless, it should not be allowed that reason jumps from particulars to remote and almost the most general axioms (what are the so-called principles of sciences and things) and, according to their unshakable truth, would test and establish average axioms. So it has been until now: the mind is inclined to this not only by natural impulse, but also because it has long been accustomed to this by proofs through syllogism. For the sciences, however, goodness is to be expected only when we ascend the true ladder, along continuous and not interrupted steps - from particulars to lesser axioms and then to middle ones, one above the other, and finally to the most general ones. For the lowest axioms differ little from bare experience. The highest and most general (which we have) are speculative and abstract, and there is nothing solid in them. (The middle axioms are true, firm and vital, human affairs and destinies depend on them. And above them, finally, are the most general axioms - not abstract, but correctly limited to these middle axioms.
Therefore, it is necessary to give the human mind not wings, but rather lead and gravity, so that they restrain its every jump and flight ...
To construct axioms, one must invent another form of induction than what has been used so far. This form must be applied not only to the discovery and testing of what are called principles, but even to lesser and intermediate ones, and finally to all axioms. Induction by mere enumeration is a childish thing: it gives shaky conclusions, and is endangered by contradictory particulars, making judgments for the most part on fewer than necessary facts, and, moreover, only those that are available. Induction, however, which will be useful in discovering and proving the sciences and arts, must divide nature by proper distinctions and exceptions. And then, after a sufficient number of negative judgments, it should conclude positive. This has not yet been accomplished... But one should use the help of this induction not only to discover axioms, but also to define concepts. In this induction lies, undoubtedly, the greatest hope..
Rene Descartes
(Extracts)
The unintelligent animals, which have only to take care of their bodies, are ceaselessly and occupied only in seeking food for it; for a person, the main part of which is the mind, in the first place should be the concern for gaining his true food - wisdom. I am firmly convinced that many would not fail to do this, if only they hoped to be in time and knew how to carry it out ...
...highest good, as shown, even apart from the light of faith, one natural reason, there is nothing else than the knowledge of the truth from its first causes, that is, wisdom; occupation of the latter is philosophy. Since all this is quite true, it is not difficult to be convinced of this, provided that everything is deduced correctly. But since this conviction is contradicted by experience, which shows that people who are most engaged in philosophy are often less wise and do not use their understanding so correctly as those who have never devoted themselves to this occupation, I would like here to briefly state what those are composed of. sciences that we now possess, and what degree of wisdom these sciences reach. First stage contains only those concepts which, by virtue of their own light, are so clear that they can be acquired without reflection . Second step covers everything that gives us sensory experience. The third is what communication with other people teaches . Here you can add in fourth place, reading books, certainly not all, but mostly those written by people who are able to give us good instructions; it's like a kind of communication with their creators. All the wisdom that is generally possessed is, in my opinion, acquired in these four ways. I do not include here divine revelation, for it does not gradually, but all at once, lift us up to an infallible faith...
In studying the nature of various minds, I noticed that there are hardly any so stupid and stupid people who would not be able either to absorb good opinions, or to rise to higher knowledge, if only they were guided in the right way. This can be proven as follows: if the beginnings are clear and nothing is deduced from anything except by means of the most obvious reasoning, then no one is so deprived of reason as not to understand the consequences that follow from this ...
In order that the purpose which I had in the publication of this book may be correctly understood, I would like to indicate here the order which, it seems to me, should be observed for my own enlightenment. First, he who possesses only ordinary and imperfect knowledge, which can be acquired through the four above-mentioned ways, must first of all draw up for himself moral rules sufficient to guide in worldly affairs, for this does not suffer delay and our first concern should be a right life. . Then you need to deal with logic, but not the one that is studied in schools ...
I know that many centuries may elapse before all the truths that can be drawn from these beginnings are deduced, since the truths that are to be found depend largely on individual experiments; the latter, however, are never accidental, but must be sought out by discerning men with care and expense. For it does not always happen that those who are able to carry out experiments correctly will acquire the opportunity to do so; and many of those who excel in such abilities form an unfavorable view of philosophy in general, owing to the defects of the philosophy hitherto in use, and therefore they will not try to find a better one. But whoever finally catches the difference between my principles and the principles of others, as well as what series of truths can be drawn from here, will be convinced of how important these principles are in the search for truth and to what a high level of wisdom, to what perfection of life, to what bliss. can bring us these beginnings. I dare to believe that there will not be anyone who would not go towards an occupation so useful to him, or at least who would not sympathize with and would not wish to help those who work fruitfully at it with all his might. I wish our descendants to see its happy end.
When I was younger, I studied a bit of philosophy, logic, and of mathematics, geometric analysis and algebra—these three arts or sciences, which, it would seem, should give something to the realization of my intention. But studying them, I noticed that in logic its syllogisms and most of its other precepts
rather help to explain to others what we know, or even,
as in the art of Lull, stupidly talk about what you do not know, instead of studying it. And although logic does indeed contain many very correct and good precepts, however, so many others are mixed in with them - either harmful or unnecessary - that it is almost as difficult to separate them as it is to discern Diana or Minerva in an unworked block of marble ... Like how an abundance of laws often serves as an excuse for vices - why the state order is much better when there are few laws, but they are strictly observed - and how, instead of a large number of rules that form logic, I found it sufficient to strictly and unshakably observe the following four.
First - never accept as true anything that I would not know as such with obviousness, in other words, carefully and guard against rashness and prejudice and include in my judgment only what appears to my mind so clearly and so distinctly that it does not give me any reason question them.
Second — to divide each of the difficulties I am investigating into as many parts as possible and necessary for the best overcoming of them.
Third - adhere to a certain order of thinking, starting with the simplest and most easily cognized objects and gradually ascending to the knowledge of the most complex, assuming order even where the objects of thinking are not at all given in their natural connection.
And the last - always make lists so complete and reviews so general that there is confidence in the absence of omissions.
Long chains of arguments, quite simple and accessible, which geometers are wont to use in their most difficult proofs, led me to the idea that everything accessible to human knowledge, however, follows one from the other. Thus, being careful not to accept as true what is not, and always observing due order in conclusions, it can be seen that there is nothing so far away that it could not be reached, nor so hidden that it could not be discovered. It was not difficult for me to find out where to begin, since I already knew that one should begin with the simplest and most understandable; considering that among all those who had previously investigated the truth in the sciences, only mathematicians were able to find some evidence, that is, to present arguments undeniable and obvious, I no longer doubted that one should begin precisely with those that they investigated.
Since the senses do not deceive, I thought it necessary to admit that there is not a single thing that would be such as it appears to us; and since there are people who err even in the simplest questions of geometry and admit paralogism in them, I, considering myself capable of erring no less than others, rejected all the false arguments that I had previously taken as proofs. Finally, considering that any idea that we have in the waking state can appear to us in a dream, without being reality, I decided to imagine that everything that ever occurred to me was no more true than the visions of my words. . But I immediately drew attention to the fact that at the same time, when I was inclined to think about the illusory nature of everything in the world, it was necessary that I myself, reasoning in this way, actually exist. And noticing that the truth I think, therefore I am, is so firm and true that the most extravagant assumptions of skeptics cannot shake it, I concluded that I could safely accept it as the first principle of the philosophy I was looking for. Then, carefully examining what I myself am, I could imagine that I had no body, that there was no world, no place where I would be, but I could not imagine that as a result of this I did not exist, on the contrary , from the fact that I doubted the truth of other things, it clearly and undoubtedly followed that I exist. And if I stopped thinking, then, even if everything else that I ever imagined was true, there was still no basis for the conclusion that I exist. From this I learned that I am a substance whose whole essence or nature is thought, and which for its being does not need any place and does not depend on any material thing. Thus, my I, the soul, which makes me what I am, is completely different from the body and is easier to know than the body, and even if it did not exist at all, it would not cease to be what it is.
Then I considered what is generally required for this or that proposition to be true and certain; for having found one proposition to be reliably true, I must also know what this certainty consists in. And noticing that in the truth position I think, therefore I exist, I am convinced by the only clear idea that for thinking one must exist, I concluded that one can take for general rule the following: everything that we represent quite clearly and distinctly is true. However, some difficulty lies in the correct discrimination of what exactly we are able to represent quite clearly.
As a result, thinking about that since I doubt, it means that my being is not completely perfect, for I quite clearly discerned that complete comprehension is something more than doubt, I began to look for where I had acquired the ability to think. About something more perfect than myself, and I clearly understood that
it must come from something naturally more perfect. As for thoughts about many other things that are outside of me - about the sky, the Earth, light, heat, and a thousand others - I did not find it so difficult to answer where they came from. For noticing that there was nothing in my thoughts about them that would put them above me, I could think that if they were true, it depended on my nature, since it was endowed with some perfections; if they are false, then they are with me from being, that is, they are in me, because I lack something. But this cannot refer to the idea of a being more perfect than me: it is clearly impossible to obtain it from nothing. Since it is unacceptable to admit that the more perfect is the result of the less perfect, as well as to assume the emergence of any thing from nothing, I could not create it myself. Thus, it remained to be assumed that this idea was put into me by someone whose nature is more perfect than mine and who combines in himself all the perfections that are accessible to my imagination - in a word, God.
This word - true - in its own sense means the correspondence of thought to an object, but when applied to things that are beyond the reach of thought, it means only that these things can serve as objects of true thoughts - whether ours or God; however, we cannot give any logical definition that helps to know the nature of truth.
Those who practiced the sciences were either empiricists or dogmatists. Empiricists, like an ant, only collect and are content with what they have collected. Rationalists, like the spider, produce cloth from themselves. The bee, on the other hand, chooses the middle way: she extracts material from garden and field flowers, but arranges and changes it according to her ability. The true work of philosophy does not differ from this either. For it does not rest solely or predominantly on the powers of the mind, and does not deposit in the consciousness untouched the material drawn from natural history and from mechanical experiments, but changes it and processes it in the mind. So, one should place good hopes on a closer and more indestructible (which has not been so far) union of these abilities - experience and reason ...
Nevertheless, it should not be allowed that reason jumps from particulars to remote and almost the most general axioms (what are the so-called principles of sciences and things) and, according to their unshakable truth, would test and establish average axioms. So it has been until now: the mind is inclined to this not only by natural impulse, but also because it has long been accustomed to this by proofs through syllogism. For the sciences, however, goodness is to be expected only when we ascend the true ladder, along continuous and not interrupted steps - from particulars to lesser axioms and then to middle ones, one above the other, and finally to the most general ones. For the lowest axioms differ little from bare experience. The highest and most general axioms (which we have) are speculative and abstract, and there is nothing solid in them. The middle axioms are true, firm and vital; human affairs and destinies depend on them. And above them, finally, are the most general axioms - not abstract, but correctly limited to these average axioms.
Therefore, it is necessary to give the human mind not wings, but rather lead and gravity, so that they restrain its every jump and flight ...
To construct the axioms, another form of induction must be devised than that which has been used hitherto. This form must be applied not only to the discovery and testing of what are called principles, but even to lesser and intermediate ones, and finally to all axioms. Induction by mere enumeration is a childish thing: it gives shaky conclusions, and is endangered by contradictory particulars, making judgments for the most part on fewer than necessary facts, and, moreover, only those that are available. Induction, however, which will be useful in discovering and proving the sciences and arts, must divide nature by proper distinctions and exceptions. And then, after enough negative judgments, it should conclude positive ones. This has not yet been accomplished... But one should use the help of this induction not only to discover axioms, but also to define concepts. This induction is undoubtedly the greatest hope.
R. Descartes. Philosophy
The author's letter to the French translator of the "Principles of Philosophy", appropriate here as a preface. ... First of all, I would like to clarify what philosophy is, starting with the most common, namely, that the word "philosophy" means the occupation of wisdom and that by wisdom is meant not only prudence in business, but also perfect knowledge of everything, what a person can know; the same knowledge that guides our lives serves the preservation of health, as well as discoveries in all the arts (arts). And in order for it to become such, it must necessarily be deduced from the first causes so that the one who tries to master it (and this, in fact, means to philosophize) begins with the study of these first causes, called the first principles. There are two requirements for these initials. First, they must be so clear and self-evident that on close examination the human mind cannot doubt their truth; secondly, the knowledge of everything else must depend on them in such a way that, although the principles could be known besides the knowledge of other things, these latter, on the contrary, could not be known without knowledge of the first principles. Then one must try to deduce knowledge about things from the principles on which they depend, in such a way that in the whole series of conclusions there is nothing that would not be completely obvious. God alone is truly wise, for he possesses perfect knowledge of everything; but people can be called more or less wise, according to how much or how little they know the truths about the most important subjects. With this, I believe, all knowledgeable people will agree.
Further, I would propose to discuss the usefulness of this philosophy and at the same time prove that philosophy, insofar as it extends to everything accessible to human knowledge, alone distinguishes us from savages and barbarians and that every people is the more civilized and educated, the better it is. philosophize; therefore there is no greater good for the state than to have true philosophers. Moreover, it is important for any person not only to live next to those who are devoted by soul to this occupation, but it is truly much better to devote oneself to it, just as it is undoubtedly preferable in life to use one's own eyes and, thanks to them, enjoy beauty and color, rather than close eyes and follow the lead of another; however, this is still better than closing your eyes and relying only on yourself. Indeed, those who lead a life without philosophy have completely closed their eyes and do not try to open them; meanwhile, the pleasure we get from contemplating things that are accessible to our eyes is incomparable with the pleasure that gives us the knowledge of what we find with the help of philosophy. Moreover, for the direction of our morals and our life, this science is more necessary than the use of the eyes to direct our steps. Unintelligent animals who have only to take care of their body continuously, and are busy only looking for food for it; for a person, the main part of which is the mind, in the first place should be the concern for gaining his true food - wisdom. I firmly believe that a great many would not fail to do this, if only they hoped for success and knew how to carry it out. There is no noble soul so attached to the objects of the senses that he does not at some time turn from them to some other and greater good, although he often does not know what the latter consists of. Those to whom fate is most favorable, who have health, honor and wealth in abundance, are no more free from such a desire than others; I am even convinced that they yearn more than others for blessings greater and more perfect than those they possess. And such a supreme good, as natural reason shows, even apart from the light of faith, is nothing other than the knowledge of the truth according to its first causes, i.e. wisdom; occupation of the latter is philosophy. Since all this is quite true, it is not difficult to be convinced of this, provided that everything is deduced correctly.
But since this conviction is contradicted by experience, which shows that people who study philosophy are often less wise and less judicious than those who have never devoted themselves to this occupation, I would like here to briefly state what are the sciences that we now possess. , and to what degree of wisdom these sciences reach. The first stage contains only those concepts which are in themselves so clear that they can be acquired without reflection. The second step covers everything that gives us sensory experience. The third is what communication with other people teaches. Here we can add, in fourth place, the reading of books, of course not all, but mainly those written by people who are able to give us good instructions; it's like a kind of communication with their creators. All the wisdom that is generally possessed is acquired, in my opinion, only in these four ways. I do not include here divine revelation, for it does not gradually but at once elevate us to infallible faith. However, at all times there were great people who tried to rise to the fifth level of wisdom, much higher and more true than the previous four: they were looking for the first causes and true principles, on the basis of which everything accessible to knowledge could be explained. And those who showed special diligence in this received the name of philosophers. No one, however, as far as I know, has successfully solved this problem. The first and most prominent of the philosophers whose writings have come down to us were Plato and Aristotle. Between them there was only this difference, that the former, brilliantly following the path of his teacher Socrates, was simply convinced that he could not find anything reliable, and was content with presenting what seemed to him probable; to this end he adopted certain principles, by means of which he tried to explain other things. Aristotle did not have such sincerity. Although he had been a student of Plato for twenty years and accepted the same principles as the latter, he completely changed the way they were presented and presented as true and correct what, most likely, he himself never considered as such. Both of these richly gifted men possessed a great deal of wisdom, obtained by the four means mentioned above, and because of this they acquired such great fame that posterity preferred to adhere to their opinions rather than seek out the best. But the main dispute among their students was primarily about whether everything should be doubted or whether anything should be accepted as certain. This subject plunged both into absurd delusions. Some of those who defended doubt extended it to worldly actions, so that they neglected prudence, while others, the defenders of certainty, supposing that this latter depends on feelings, completely relied on them. This went so far that, according to legend, Epicurus, contrary to all the arguments of astronomers, dared to assert that the Sun is no more than what it seems. Here, in most disputes, one mistake can be noticed: while the truth lies between two defended views, each one moves away from it the farther the more heatedly he argues. But the error of those who were too inclined to doubt did not long have followers, and the error of others was somewhat corrected when they learned that the senses deceive us in very many cases. But as far as I know, the bug has not been fixed at the root; it was not stated that rightness is inherent not in feeling, but only in reason, when it clearly perceives things. And since we have only the knowledge acquired in the first four steps of wisdom, there is no need to doubt what seems to be true regarding our worldly behavior; however, we must not take this as immutable, so as not to reject the opinions that we have about something where the evidence of reason requires us to do so. Not knowing the truth of this proposition, or knowing but neglecting it, many of those who wanted to be philosophers in recent centuries blindly followed Aristotle and often, violating the spirit of his writings, attributed to him different opinions, which he, having returned to life, would not recognize as his own, and those those who did not follow him (among them there were many excellent minds), could not but be imbued with his views even in his youth, since in schools only his views were studied; therefore their minds were so filled with the latter that they were not able to pass on to the knowledge of the true principles. And although I appreciate them all and do not want to become odious in blaming them, I can give one proof, which, I think, none of them would dispute. Precisely, almost all of them assumed for the beginning something that they themselves did not know at all. Here are examples: I don't know anyone who would deny that earthly bodies are inherently heavy; but although experience clearly shows that bodies called weighty tend to the center of the earth, we still do not know from this what is the nature of what is called gravity, i.e. what is the cause or what is the beginning of the fall of the bodies, but must learn about it in some other way. The same can be said about emptiness and about atoms, about warm and cold, about dry and wet, about salt, sulphur, mercury and about all similar things which are accepted by some as beginnings. But no conclusion drawn from an unobvious beginning can be obvious, even if this conclusion is drawn in the most obvious way. Hence it follows that no conclusion based on such principles could lead to a certain knowledge of anything, and that, therefore, it could not advance one step in the search for wisdom. If something true is found, then this is done only with the help of one of the four above methods. However, I do not wish to belittle the honor to which each of these authors may claim; for those who are not engaged in science, I must say this as a consolation: like travelers, if they turn their backs on the place where they are going, they move away from it the more the longer and faster they walk, so that, although they turn then on the right path, but not so soon they reach the desired place, as if they had not walked at all - exactly the same happens with those who use false principles: the more they care about the latter and the more they worry about deriving various consequences from them, considering themselves good philosophers, the farther they go from the knowledge of truth and wisdom. From this it must be concluded that those who have studied least of all what has hitherto been usually designated by the name of philosophy are the most capable of comprehending true philosophy.
Having clearly shown all this, I would like to present here arguments that would testify that the first principles that I propose in this book are those very first principles with which you can reach the highest stage of wisdom (and in it lies the highest good of human life ). Only two reasons are sufficient to confirm this: first, that these first principles are very clear, and second, that everything else can be deduced from them; besides these two conditions, no others are required for the first principles. And that they are quite clear, I easily show, firstly, from the way in which I found these first principles, namely, by discarding everything that I could have the opportunity to doubt in the slightest; for it is certain that whatever cannot be thus dismissed after sufficient consideration is the clearest and most obvious of all that is accessible to human knowledge. So, for someone who would doubt everything, it is impossible, however, to doubt that he himself exists while he doubts; whoever thinks this way and cannot doubt himself, although he doubts everything else, is not what we call our body, but what we call our soul or ability to think. I took the existence of this ability as the first principle, from which I deduced the clearest consequence, namely, that there is a God, the creator of everything that exists in the world; and since he is the source of all truths, he did not create our mind by nature in such a way that the latter could be deceived in judging things that he perceived in the clearest and most distinct way. This is all my first principles, which I use in relation to non-material, i.e. metaphysical things. From these principles I deduce in the clearest way the principles of corporeal things, i.e. physical: namely, that there are bodies extended in length, width and depth, having various shapes and moving in various ways. Such, in general, are all those first principles from which I deduce the truth about other things. The second reason that testifies to the obviousness of the fundamentals is this: they were known at all times and even considered by all people to be true and undoubted, excluding only the existence of God, which was called into question by some, since they were too great importance was given to sensory perceptions, and God can neither be seen nor touched. Although all these truths, which I took as principles, have always been known to everyone, however, as far as I know, there has not yet been anyone who would take them as the principles of philosophy, i.e. who would understand that knowledge of everything that exists in the world can be derived from them. It therefore remains for me to prove here that these first principles are just such; It seems to me that it is impossible to present this better than by showing it by experience, namely by urging readers to read this book. After all, although I do not talk about everything in it (and this is impossible), nevertheless, it seems to me that the questions that I happened to discuss are set out here in such a way that people who have read this book with attention will be able to make sure that there is no the need to look for other principles, in addition to those I have stated, in order to achieve the highest knowledge that is accessible to the human mind. Especially if, after reading what I have written, they take into account how many different questions have been clarified here, and after looking at the writings of other authors, they will notice how little plausible the solutions of the same questions based on principles different from mine. And to make it easier for them to do this, I could tell them that the one who began to adhere to my views will much more easily understand the writings of others and establish their true value than the one who did not imbue my views; back, as I said above, if you happen to read the book to those who started with ancient philosophy, then, the more they labored over the latter, the less they usually turn out to be able to comprehend the true philosophy.
The emergence of consciousness and its social nature. Consciousness and the brain.
Conscious and unconscious.
Ontological status of consciousness.
Consciousness as a form of modeling reality.
Consciousness and self-awareness.
Topic 6. Philosophical theory of knowledge
Issues for discussion:
Subject and object of knowledge. Structure and forms of knowledge.
Features of the sensual and rational in cognition.
The problem of truth and error. Criteria, forms and types of truth.
Dialectics of the cognitive process. Agnosticism in philosophy.
Terms:
Subject, object, knowledge, sensual, rational, theoretical and empirical levels of cognition, cognitive sphere, sensation, perception, representation, concept, judgment, conclusion, abstract, epistemological image, sign, meaning, thinking, reason, mind, intuition, feeling, truth, error, falsehood, experience.
Tasks for checking the level of competencies:
1. There is a well-known theory of knowledge. Its essence is expressed in the following words: "... after all, to seek and to know - this is exactly what it means to remember ... But to find knowledge in oneself - this is what it means to remember, isn't it?"
a) What is the name of this theory?
c) What is the meaning of "remembering"?
d) What is common between this theory and the methods of scientific research?
2. Comment on Leonardo da Vinci's statement:
"The eye, called the window of the soul, is the main way through which the common sense can, in the greatest richness and splendor, contemplate the endless works of nature ... Don't you see that the eye embraces the beauty of the whole world?"
a) What does Leonardo consider the main way of knowing?
b) Is the path of cognition chosen by Leonardo philosophical, scientific, or perhaps it is a different path of cognition? Explain your answer.
3. Read F. Bacon's statement:
“Man, the servant and interpreter of nature, does and understands as much as he has comprehended in the order of nature by deed or reflection, and beyond this he does not know and cannot.”
a) What role does F. Bacon assign to a person in the process of cognition? Should the researcher wait for nature to manifest itself or should he be actively involved in scientific research?
b) Does F. Bacon limit human possibilities in the study of nature? Explain your answer.
4. “For the sciences, however, we should expect good only when we ascend the true ladder, along continuous, and not interrupted steps - from particulars to lesser axioms and then to middle ones, one above the other, and finally to the most general ones. For the most the lower axioms differ little from bare experience, while the higher and most general ones (which we have) are speculative and abstract, and there is nothing solid in them, while the middle axioms are true, solid and vital, on which human deeds and destinies depend. , finally, the most general axioms are located - not abstract, but correctly limited to these average axioms.
Therefore, it is necessary to give the human mind not wings, but rather lead and gravity, so that they restrain its every jump and flight ... "57
(b) What steps must a person go through in the process of cognition?
5. Expand the meaning of F. Bacon's slogan "Knowledge is power".
(a) What prospects does it reveal for humanity?
b) What attitude towards nature does this slogan form?
c) Is not the possession of knowledge one of the causes of ecological catastrophe?
6. F. Bacon was of the opinion that "It is better to cut nature into pieces than to be distracted from it."
a) What logical devices are opposed by F. Bacon?
b) Is this opposition correct?
7. "Those who practiced the sciences were either empiricists or dogmatists. The empiricists, like the ant, only collect and are content with what they have collected. Rationalists, like the spider, produce fabric from themselves. The bee chooses the middle way: it extracts material from garden and wildflowers, but disposes and changes it according to his own skill. The true work of philosophy does not differ from this" 58 .
a) Do you agree with Bacon?
b) Why does Bacon compare his method to a bee?
c) Confirm with specific examples the close and indestructible union of experience and reason in science and philosophy.
8. "The best of all proofs is experience ... The way people use experience now is blind and unreasonable. And because they wander and wander without any right path and are guided only by those things that come across, they turn to many things, but they make little progress…” 59
b) Why is experience, according to Bacon, the best way getting the truth?
9. F. Bacon formulates the concepts of ghosts that occur in the course of knowledge:
"There are four kinds of ghosts that besiege the minds of people ... Let's call the first kind of ghosts - the ghosts of the clan, the second - the ghosts of the cave, the third - the ghosts of the market and the fourth - the ghosts of the theater."
(b) What is the meaning of each of the ghosts?
c) What method of getting rid of the ghosts of knowledge does Bacon offer?
10. “Very little experience and intuition are enough. Most of our knowledge depends on deduction and mediating ideas… The faculty that finds means and applies them correctly to establish certainty in one case and probability in another, is what we call “reason” …
Reason penetrates into the depths of the sea and earth, raises our thoughts to the stars, leads us through the expanses of the universe. But it does not cover the real area even material items and in many cases he cheats on us...
But reason completely betrays us where there are not enough ideas. Reason does not and cannot reach beyond ideas. Reasoning therefore breaks off where we have no ideas, and our reasoning comes to an end. If, however, we reason about words that do not designate any ideas, then reasoning deals only with sounds, and with nothing else ... "60
12. The French philosopher R. Descartes believed: “We come to the knowledge of things in two ways, namely: through experience and deduction ... Experience often misleads us, while deduction or a pure inference about one thing through another cannot be poorly constructed, even minds very little accustomed to thinking."
(a) What fallacy follows from Descartes' statement?
b) What is the basis for such a high evaluation of the deductive method?
c) What way of thinking is found in Descartes' statement?
13. Diderot believed that a person in the process of cognition can be likened to a "piano": "We are instruments gifted with the ability to sense and memory. Our feelings are the keys that the nature around us strikes."
a) What is wrong with this model?
b) How is the problem of the subject and object of cognition considered in this process?
14. I. Kant noted in the Critique of Pure Reason:
"The intellect cannot contemplate anything, and the senses cannot think anything. Only from their combination can knowledge arise."
Is this point of view correct?
15. "Knowledge of the spirit is the most concrete and therefore the highest and most difficult. Know yourself - this is an absolute commandment, neither in itself, nor where it was expressed historically, it does not matter only self-knowledge aimed at individual abilities, character, inclinations and weaknesses of an individual, but the meaning of knowing what is true in a person, true in and for oneself, is the knowledge of essence itself as spirit...
Every activity of the spirit is therefore its comprehension of itself, and the goal of every true science is only that the spirit in everything that is in heaven and on earth cognizes itself.
a) What form of epistemology is represented in this judgment?
b) Is it correct to expand the Socratic principle "know thyself" to "knowledge of essence itself as spirit"?
16. "Pure science, therefore, presupposes a liberation from the opposition of consciousness and its object. It contains thought in itself, insofar as thought is also the thing in itself, or it contains the thing in itself, since the thing is also pure thought.
As a science, truth is pure developing self-consciousness and has the image of selfhood, that what is in and for itself is a conscious concept, and the concept as such is in and for itself what is. This objective thinking is the content of pure science.
a) Analyze this text and determine what worldview positions the author stands on.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was born in London in the family of the Lord Privy Seal under Queen Elizabeth. From the age of 12 he studied at the University of Cambridge (College of the Holy Trinity). Choosing a political career as a career, Bacon received a law degree. In 1584 he was elected to the House of Commons, in 1618 he was appointed Lord Chancellor. In the spring of 1621, Bacon was accused of corruption by the House of Lords, put on trial, and was released from severe punishment only by the grace of King James I. This ended Bacon's political activity, and he devoted himself entirely to scientific pursuits, which had previously occupied a significant place in his activities.
The problems of the method of scientific knowledge are set out by F. Bacon in his work « New Organon» , which was published in 1620. In the published posthumously "New Atlantis" he sets out a blueprint for the state organization of science, which, according to historians of science, is an anticipation of the creation of European academies of sciences.
F. Bacon is considered founder of the empiricist tradition both in England (“island empiricism”) and in modern European philosophy as a whole. "Island empiricism" is the designation of the epistemological position, characteristic of British philosophers and opposed to the so-called "continental rationalism", widespread on the European continent in the 17th century. epistemological rationalism in the narrow sense. Following Fr. Bacon's "island empiricism" was developed in British philosophy of the 17th-18th centuries. T. Hobbes, J. Locke, J. Berkeley, D. Hume and others.
Empiricism (Greek empeiria - experience) is a direction in epistemology, according to which sensory experience is the basis of knowledge, its main source and criterion of reliability (truth). Empiricism includes sensationalism, but does not coincide with the latter. Sensualism (lat. sensus - feeling, sensation) reduces the entire content of knowledge to sensations. His motto: "There is nothing in the mind that was not previously in the senses." Supporters of empiricism see the foundation of knowledge in experience, which includes knowledge and skills that are formed on the basis of sensory data as a result of the activity of consciousness in general and practice.
The main motives of Bacon's philosophy are the knowledge of nature and the subordination of its power to man. He pays special attention to the knowledge of nature, believing that the truth extracted from there is highly needed by man.
Like any radical reformer, Bacon paints the past in gloomy colors and is full of bright hopes for the future. Until now, the state of the sciences and mechanical arts has been very poor. Of the 25 centuries of development of human culture, only six are recruited that are favorable for science ( Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, New time). All the rest of the time is marked by gaps in knowledge, marking time, chewing on the same speculative philosophy.
Bacon believes that natural science has hitherto taken an insignificant part in human life. Philosophy, "that great mother of all sciences has been reduced to the contemptuous position of a servant." Philosophy, having discarded its abstract form, must enter into a "lawful marriage" with natural science, for only then will it be able to "bear children and deliver real benefits and honest pleasures." The importance of science lies in its significance for man. Science is not knowledge for the sake of knowledge. The ultimate goal of science is invention and discovery. The purpose of inventions is human benefit, satisfaction of needs and improvement of people's lives. "We can do as much as we know." "Fruits and practical inventions are, as it were, guarantors and witnesses of the truth of philosophies."
Bacon believes that those who worked in the field of science in the past were either empiricists or dogmatists. “Empiricists, like an ant, only collect and are content with what they have collected. Rationalists, like the spider, produce cloth from themselves. The bee, on the other hand, chooses the middle way: she extracts material from garden and field flowers, but arranges and changes it according to her ability. The true work of philosophy does not differ from this either. For it does not rest solely or predominantly on the powers of the mind, and does not deposit in the consciousness untouched the material drawn from natural history and mechanical experiments, but changes it and processes it in the mind. So, a good hope should be placed on a closer and more indestructible (which has not been so far) union of these two abilities - experience and reason.
According to Bacon, the creative, positive part new philosophy must be preceded by a destructive, negative part, directed against the causes that retard mental progress. These reasons lie in various kinds of "idols", "ghosts", prejudices to which the human mind is subject. Bacon points to four varieties of "idols", "ghosts".
1. Idols of the “kind” (idola tribus). The very nature of man is characterized by the limitedness of the mind and the imperfection of the senses. “Just as an uneven mirror changes the path of rays from objects according to its own shape and section, so the mind, being influenced by things through the senses, in the development and inventing of its concepts, sins against fidelity by weaving and mixing with the nature of things its own nature." Interpreting nature "by analogy with man", end goals are attributed to nature, etc.
To the same idols of the race should be attributed the human mind's tendency to generalize, not justified by a sufficient number of facts. Because of this, the human mind soars from the most insignificant facts to the broadest generalizations. That is why, Bacon emphasizes, weights must be hung from the wings of the mind so that it stays closer to the ground, to the facts. " For the sciences, goodness should be expected only when we ascend the true ladder, and not interrupted steps - from particulars to lesser axioms and then to middle ones, and, finally, to the most general ... Therefore, human reason must be given not wings, but rather, lead and gravity, so that they hold back his every jump and flight ... ".
2. Idols of the "cave" (idola specus). These are individual shortcomings in cognition, due to the peculiarities of the bodily organization, upbringing, environment, circumstances that cause certain addictions, because a person is inclined to believe in the truth of what he prefers. As a consequence, each person has "his own special cave, which breaks and distorts the light of nature." So, some tend to see differences in things, others - similarities, some are committed to tradition, others are seized with a sense of the new, etc. The idols of the "cave" push people to extremes.
3. Idols of the "square", or "market", "market square" (idola fori). « There are also idols that appear, as it were, due to the mutual connection and community of people. We call these idols, meaning the communion and fellowship of people that gives rise to them, the idols of the square. People are united by speech. Words are established according to the understanding of the crowd. Therefore, the bad and absurd establishment of words surprisingly besieges the mind.. These idols are the most painful, because despite such confidence of people (and even because of it), words gradually penetrate into human consciousness and often distort the logic of reasoning. “Words directly rape the mind, confuse everything and lead people to empty and countless disputes and interpretations.”
Criticism of the idols of the square is directed, first of all, against the imperfection of ordinary language: the ambiguity of words, the uncertainty of their content. At the same time, it is also a criticism. scholastic philosophy, inclined to invent and use the names of non-existent things (for example, "fate", "prime mover", etc.), as a result of which the mind is drawn into pointless, meaningless and fruitless disputes.
4. Idols of "theater" or "theories" (idola theatri). This includes false theories and philosophies as comedies representing fictional and artificial worlds. People are prone to blind faith in authorities, following which a person perceives things not as they really exist, but biased, with prejudice. Those possessed by these idols try to encapsulate the diversity and richness of nature in one-sided schemes of abstract constructions. All sorts of clichés, dogmas corrupt the mind.
Combating authoritarian thinking is one of Bacon's main concerns. Only one authority should be unconditionally recognized, the authority of the Holy Scriptures in matters of faith, but in the knowledge of Nature, the mind must rely only on the experience in which Nature is revealed to it. “Some of the new philosophers, with the greatest frivolity, went so far,” F. Bacon ironically, “that they tried to base natural philosophy on the first chapter of the book of Genesis, on the book of Job and on others scriptures. This vanity must be restrained and suppressed all the more because not only a fantastic philosophy, but also a heretical religion is derived from the reckless confusion of the divine and the human. Therefore, it will be more salutary if a sober mind gives faith only what belongs to it. Breeding two truths - divine and human - allowed Bacon to strengthen the autonomy of science and scientific activity.
Thus, an impartial mind, freed from all kinds of prejudices, open to Nature and listening to experience - such is the starting position of Baconian philosophy. To master the truth of things, it remains to resort to the correct method of working with experience. Such a method should be induction, “which would produce division and selection in experience and, by appropriate eliminations and rejections, would draw the necessary conclusions.”
inductive method. Bacon demonstrates his understanding of the inductive method on the example of finding the nature, the "form" of heat. The research goes as follows. Three tables are made. In the first one (tabula praesentiae, "table of presence"), objects are collected and recorded in which the phenomenon under study is present (rays of the Sun, lightning, flame, hot metals, etc.). The second table (tabula absentiae, “absence table”) contains objects similar to those listed in the first table, but in which there is no heat (the rays of the moon, stars, the glow of phosphorus, etc.). Finally, there are objects (for example, stone, metal, wood, etc.) that usually do not produce a sensation of warmth, but in which it is present in a greater or lesser degree. lesser degree. The degrees of warmth of these objects are recorded in the third table (tabula graduum, "table of degrees").
A logical analysis of these tables makes it possible to find the circumstance that exists everywhere where there is heat, and is absent where there is no heat. If we find this circumstance (“nature”), then we will thereby also find the cause (“form”) of heat. Using logical tricks(analogy, exclusion technique using categorical, conditionally categorical and distributive syllogism), we exclude a number of circumstances until the one that is the cause of warmth remains. Such a cause, Bacon shows, is motion, which is present wherever there is heat.
Investigation by means of the inductive method leads Bacon to the conclusion that there are a number of "forms", such as density, heaviness, etc. The number of simple forms is finite (Bacon names 19). Every complex empirically given thing consists of their various combinations and combinations. For clarity, Bacon gives a comparison with language: just as words are made up of letters, so bodies are made up of simple forms; just as the knowledge of letters enables us to understand words, so the knowledge of forms will lead us to the knowledge of complex bodies. So, for example, gold has a yellow color, a certain specific gravity, malleability, fusibility, etc. Each of these properties has its own “shape”.
In conclusion, it should be noted that the significance of the teachings of F. Bacon is much broader than the simple introduction of the inductive method into scientific research. In fact, F Bacon stands at the origins of the formation of that ideal of scientificity, which later received the name "Physical ideal of science", where the central role is assigned to the empirical basis, and the theoretical axiomatics has an empirical character. 1
The foundations of the rationalistic tradition alternative to empiricism were laid by the French philosopher René Descartes.
René Descartes (1596-1650) was born into a family belonging to the noble family of Touraine, which predetermined his future on the path of military service. In the Jesuit school, which Descartes graduated from, he showed a strong inclination towards mathematics and an unconditional rejection of the scholastic tradition. Military life (and Descartes had to participate in the Thirty Years' War) did not attract the thinker, and in 1629 he left the service and chose the then freest country in Europe, Holland, as his place of residence, and for 20 years he was exclusively busy scientific works. During this period of life, the main works on the methodology of scientific knowledge were written: "Rules for the Guidance of the Mind" And "Discourse on Method". In 1649 he accepted the invitation of the Swedish Queen Christina to help her found the Academy of Sciences. The philosopher's unusual daily routine (meetings with the "royal student" at 5 o'clock in the morning), the harsh climate of Sweden and hard work caused his premature death.
Descartes was one of the creators of modern science. He made notable contributions to a number of scientific disciplines. In algebra, he introduced alphabetic symbols, designated variables with the last letters of the Latin alphabet (x, y, z), introduced the current notation of degrees, laid the foundations for the theory of equations. In geometry, he introduced a system of rectilinear coordinates, laid the foundations of analytical geometry. In optics, he discovered the law of refraction of a light beam at the boundary of two different media. Assessing the contribution of R. Descartes to philosophy, A. Schopenhauer wrote that he "for the first time prompted the mind to stand on its own feet and taught people to use their own head, which until then had been replaced by the Bible ... and Aristotle."
Descartes, like Bacon, stressed the need for a reform of scientific thinking. We need a philosophy that will help in the practical affairs of people so that they can become masters of nature. According to Descartes, the construction of philosophy should begin with a consideration of the method, since only with the right method can one "achieve knowledge of everything."
Just like Bacon, Descartes criticizes all prior knowledge. Here, however, he takes a more radical position. He proposes to question not individual philosophical schools or the teachings of ancient authorities, but all the achievements of the former culture. “A person who investigates the truth needs at least once in his life to
1 The ideal of scientificity is a system of cognitive norms and requirements based on them for the results of scientific cognitive activity. Allocate mathematical, physical, humanitarian ideals of scientific character. Each of the identified ideals of scientificity is based on a basic cognitive orientation that determines the nature of the questions asked to being, a special combination of methods, techniques and procedures for obtaining answers to these questions.
to thread in all things - as far as they are possible. Since we are born as infants and pass various judgments on sensible things before we fully master our reason, we are distracted from true knowledge by many superstitions; Obviously, we can get rid of them only if, for once in our lives, we try to doubt all those things about the reliability of which we harbor even the slightest suspicion.
However, the principle of Descartes, according to which everything should be doubted, puts forward doubt not as an end, but only as a means. As Hegel writes, this principle “has rather the meaning that we must renounce all prejudices, that is, all premises that are accepted directly as true, and must begin with thinking and only from there come to something certain in order to gain real start." Descartes' doubt is thus inherently methodological doubt. It acts as a doubt that destroys all (imaginary) certainty in order to find the only (real) primary certainty. "Primary" certainty can be the cornerstone underlying the entire structure of our knowledge.
Bacon finds primary certainty in sensory evidence, in empirical knowledge. For Descartes, however, sensual evidence as a basis, the principle of the certainty of knowledge, is unacceptable. “Everything that I have hitherto believed to be the most true, I have received either from the senses or through them. But I sometimes convicted feelings of deceit, and it would be reasonable not always to firmly believe those who deceived us at least once.
It is also impossible to base the reliability of knowledge on "authorities". The question would instantly arise where the credibility of these authorities comes from. Descartes raises the question of comprehending certainty in itself, certainty, which must be the initial premise and therefore cannot itself be based on other prerequisites.
Descartes finds such certainty in the thinking self, or rather in the fact of doubt. Doubt is certain, because even when we doubt the existence of doubt, we doubt. But what is doubt? The activity of thinking. If there is doubt, then there is thinking. But if there is doubt and thinking, then surely there is a doubting and thinking self. “If we discard and declare false everything that can be doubted in any way, then it is easy to assume that there is no god, sky, body, but it cannot be said that we who think in this way do not exist. For it is unnatural to suppose that what thinks does not exist. And so the fact expressed in words: "I think, therefore I am" cogito ergo sum) , is the first of all and the most reliable of those that will appear before everyone who correctly philosophizes..
The fact that Descartes finds primary certainty in the thinking self is connected in a certain sense with the development of natural science, or, more precisely, with the development of the mathematical constructions of natural science. Mathematics, in which the basis is an ideal construction (and not what this construction corresponds to in real nature), is considered a science that achieves its truths with a high degree of certainty. “Perhaps we will not judge wrongly if we say that physics, astronomy, medicine, and all other sciences that depend on the observation of complex things, are of dubious value, but that arithmetic, geometry, and other similar sciences, which talk only about things of the simplest and most the most general and care little about whether these things are in nature or not, contain something certain and undoubted. For both in sleep and wakefulness, two plus three always equals five, and a rectangle has no more than four sides. It seems impossible that such obvious truths should be suspected of being wrong." Descartes here points out that the reliability of mathematics lies in the fact that, compared with other sciences, they depend most of all on the thinking self and least of all on "external reality".
Thus, the primary certainty, on the basis of which new knowledge can be created, must be sought in the mind. The very perception of these primary certainties, according to Descartes, occurs through intuition . “By intuition I do not mean the shaky evidence of the senses, nor the deceptive judgment of the wrongly composing imagination, but the understanding of a clear and attentive mind, so easy and distinct that there is absolutely no doubt about what we mean, or, what is the same, an undoubted understanding of a clear and attentive mind, which is generated by the light of the mind alone ... Thus, everyone can see with the mind that it exists, that it thinks that the triangle is limited to only three lines, and the ball is limited to a single surface, and the like, which are much more numerous than most people notice, because they consider it unworthy to turn the mind to such easy things.
Further development of thought, according to Descartes, occurs as a result of deduction , which Descartes calls "the movement of thought", in which the coupling of intuitive truths takes place. Thus, the path of knowledge consists in the derivation (deduction) of any truth from the previous one and all truths from the first one. . The result of a consistent and branched deduction should be the construction of a system of universal knowledge, a "universal science".
The above provisions of Descartes formed the basis of his method of cognition. This method involves following four rules:
1) do not take anything on faith, which is obviously not sure. Avoid all haste and prejudice, and include in your judgments only what appears to the mind so clearly and distinctly that it can in no way give rise to doubt;
2) divide each problem chosen for study into as many parts as possible and necessary for its best solution (analytical rule) ;
3) arrange their thoughts in a certain order, starting with the simplest and easily cognizable objects, and ascend little by little, as if by steps, to the knowledge of the most complex, allowing the existence of order even among those that in the natural course of things do not precede each other (synthetic rule) ;
4) make lists everywhere so complete and reviews so comprehensive as to be sure that nothing is omitted (enumeration rule).
If F. Bacon laid the foundations of the "physical ideal of scientificity", then R. Descartes is at the origins "mathematical ideal of science", where such cognitive values as logical clarity, strictly deductive nature, the possibility of obtaining consistent results by logical inference from the basic premises expressed in axioms are brought to the fore.
8.2.2. The problem of "innate knowledge"
The dispute over the problem of the method of scientific knowledge between the representatives of rationalism and empiricism continued in the discussion around the problem of "innate knowledge", i.e. concepts and provisions that are inherent in human thinking and do not depend on experience (the axioms of mathematics, logic, ethics, initial philosophical principles).
In the philosophy of modern times, the theme of innate knowledge came to the fore under the influence of the epistemology of Descartes. According to Descartes, human cognitive activity is composed of three classes of ideas, the role of which, however, is not the same. One of them includes ideas received by each person from the outside as a result of continuous sensory contacts with things and phenomena. This is the idea of the Sun that every person has. The second kind of ideas is formed in his mind on the basis of ideas of the first kind. They can be either completely fantastic, like the idea of a chimera, or more realistic, like the idea of the same Sun, which the astronomer forms on the basis of an external sensory idea, but more justified and profound than a common person. But for the process of cognition, the most important and even decisive role is played by the third variety of ideas, which Descartes calls congenital . Their distinguishing features were: complete independence from external objects that act on the senses, clarity, distinctness and simplicity, indicating independence from the will. As the author of Rules for the Direction of the Mind explains, “things we call simple are either purely intellectual, or purely material, or general. Purely intellectual are those things which are cognized by the intellect by means of some light innate to it, without any participation of any bodily image. For example, knowledge, doubt, ignorance, action of the will are completely clear without any bodily image. Purely material ideas should be recognized as those ideas that are possible only in relation to bodies - extension, figure, movement, etc. Spiritual and at the same time material ideas are such ideas as existence, unity, duration. All these are innate concepts. The highest of them, and decisive for all knowledge, is absolutely spiritual concept God as an actual-infinite absolute, always present in the human soul.
Along with innate concepts, there are also innate axioms, which are the connection between the concepts of our thinking. Examples of them are such truths as “two quantities equal to a third are equal to each other”, “something cannot come from nothing”. The category of innate truths should also include the position about the impossibility of the same being and not being at the same time (i.e., the logical law of identity), as well as the original truth - "I think, therefore I exist." The number of such innate positions, according to Descartes, is innumerable. They are revealed in a variety of cases of scientific research, and even in everyday life.
The innateness of ideas does not mean that they are always present in the human mind as ready-made, automatically clear almost from the womb of man. In reality, innateness means only a predisposition, a tendency to manifest these ideas under certain conditions, when they become perfectly clear, distinct and obvious.
D. Locke, a representative of British empiricism, criticized these provisions of R. Descartes.
John Locke (1632-1704) was born into a Puritan family that was in opposition to the Anglican Church, which was dominant in the country. Studied at Oxford University. Remaining at the university as a teacher, he studied chemistry, mineralogy, and medicine. There he met with the philosophy of Descartes. Worked on a book for 19 years "An Essay on Human Understanding" , a kind of "manifesto of British empiricism"
The question of the origin, reliability and limits of human knowledge, John Locke identified as one of the main tasks of his philosophy. The answer to it was to serve as a solid foundation for all the undertakings of the human mind. Following Bacon, Locke defines experience as the basis of all knowledge. This choice was dictated, in particular, by the complete rejection of the alternative (rationalist) position, which bound itself with the recognition of the existence of innate ideas. According to Locke, open-minded criticism of this concept did not leave her any right to exist.
Are there innate ideas? Locke considers the concept of innate ideas untenable. Supporters of innate ideas include some theoretical and practical (moral) principles as such. The theoretical ones include, for example, the principles of logic: “That which is - that is” (the principle of identity) or: “It is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be” (the principle of contradiction). But, says Locke, these provisions are unknown to children and those who do not have a scientific education. That bitter is not sweet, that a rose is not a cherry, the child understands this much earlier than he can understand the situation: "It is impossible that the same thing could be and at the same time not be."
Moral propositions are also not innate. For different people and in different states, moral convictions can be different and even opposite. “Where are these innate principles of justice, piety, gratitude, truth, chastity? Where is that universal recognition that assures us of the existence of such innate rules?... And if we cast a glance at people as they are, we will see that in one place some feel pangs of conscience because of what others have in another place show their merit.
The idea of God is also not innate: some peoples do not have it; different ideas about God among polytheists and monotheists; even among people belonging to the same religion, ideas about God differ from each other.
Refuting the concept of innate ideas, Locke proceeds from three main provisions:
There are no innate ideas, all knowledge is born in and out of experience;
the "soul" (or mind) of a person at birth is "tabula rasa" ("blank slate");
There is nothing in the mind that was not there before in sensations, in feelings.
“Suppose that the soul is, so to speak, white paper, without any features and ideas. But how is it filled with them? Where does it get all the material of reasoning and knowledge? To this I answer in one word: from experience. All our knowledge is contained in experience, from which, after all, it comes. Locke understands experience as an individual process. Experience is everything that a person directly deals with throughout his life. Reasonable ability is formed in the process of life experience and due to the own efforts of each individual.
Locke understands experience, first of all, as the impact of objects of the surrounding world on us, our sensory organs. Therefore, for him, sensation is the basis of all knowledge. However, in accordance with one of his main theses about the need to study the abilities and limits of human cognition, he also draws attention to the study of the actual process of cognition, to the activity of thought (soul). The experience that we acquire in this, he defines as "internal", in contrast to the experience gained through the perception of the sensory world. Ideas that arose on the basis of external experience (i.e., mediated sensory perceptions), he calls sensual ( sensations ); ideas that take their origin from inner experience, he defines as arising "reflections" .
However, experience - both external and internal - leads directly only to the emergence of simple ideas . In order for our thought (soul) to receive general ideas, it is necessary meditation . Reflection, in the understanding of Locke, is a process in which from simple ideas (obtained on the basis of external and internal experience) complex ideas which cannot appear directly on the basis of feelings or reflection. “Sensations first introduce individual ideas and fill the still empty space with them; and as the mind gradually becomes accustomed to some of them, they are placed in memory along with the names given to them.
Complex ideas appear, according to Locke, as follows.
♦ Direct summation of ideas. Thus, the idea of "apple" is the result of adding several simpler ideas: "color", "taste", "shape", "smell", etc.
♦ Simple ideas are compared, compared, relationships are established between them. This is how ideas appear: “cause”, “difference”, “identity”, etc.
♦ Generalization. It happens in the following way. Single objects of a certain class are broken down into simple properties; those that are repeated are selected and those that are not repeated are discarded; then repeated ones are summed up, which gives a complex general idea. So, “if from the complex ideas denoted by the words “man” and “horse”, we exclude only the features by which they differ, retain only that in which they converge, form from this a new complex idea that is different from others and give it a name " animal", then a more general term will be obtained, embracing various other creatures along with man. When using such a procedure, generalizations of all higher levels become less meaningful.
According to Locke, everything he said should confirm his main thesis: "there is nothing in the mind that was not previously in the senses" . The mind is only capable of combining ideas, but regardless of its strength, it is unable to destroy or invent new (“simple”) ideas.
However, at the same time, Locke does not seem to notice one obvious thing. Ascribing to the mind a constructive ability to create complex ideas with the help of summation, generalization, abstraction, etc., he does not ask about the origin of this ability. Since this ability cannot be obtained through experience, then, obviously, this ability is innate in the human mind. Therefore, there is innate knowledge. This is precisely what G. Leibniz had in mind when, arguing with Locke, he wrote: "There is nothing in the mind that is not in the senses, except the mind itself."
Very important element Locke's view is his concept of "primary" and "secondary" qualities. Qualities "which are absolutely inseparable from the body," Locke calls " initial, or primary... they generate in us simple ideas, i.e. density, extension, form, movement or rest and number. Primary qualities "really exist" in the bodies themselves, they are inherent in them all and always. Primary qualities are perceived by various sense organs in a coordinated and figuratively accurate way. The simple ideas of solidity, extension, form, movement, number are an exact reflection of the properties inherent in the bodies themselves.
It's different with ideas. secondary qualities - color, sound, smell, taste, heat, cold, pain, etc. It is impossible to say with complete certainty about these ideas that they themselves reflect the properties of external bodies as they exist outside of us.
Locke sees different approaches to the solution of the question of the relation of the ideas of secondary qualities to the properties of external bodies. Firstly, the statement is made that the secondary qualities are “imaginary”, they are the states of the subject himself. So, for example, we can say that there is no objective bitterness in quinine, it is just an experience of the subject. Secondly, there is the opposite approach, which maintains that the ideas of secondary qualities are the exact semblance of qualities in bodies outside of us. Thirdly, it can be considered that “in the bodies themselves there is nothing like these ideas of ours. In bodies ... there is only the ability to produce these sensations in us. Locke considers the last option closest to the truth. He says that the special structure of combinations of primary qualities evokes in the mind of a person ideas of secondary qualities. These ideas arise in the mind of the subject only under appropriate conditions of perception. As a result, Locke argues that the ideas of primary qualities are adequate to the very properties of things, while secondary ones are not. "The ideas that are evoked in us by secondary qualities bear no resemblance to them at all." But the ideas of secondary qualities have a basis in things, an objective basis. “What is sweet, blue or warm in an idea, then in the bodies themselves ... there is only a certain volume, shape and movement of imperceptible particles. Violet, from the impact of such imperceptible particles of matter... evokes in our mind the ideas of the blue color and the pleasant smell of this flower.
Locke's doctrine of primary and secondary qualities marked, firstly, the rise of the theory of knowledge, which recognizes such a distinction, over the point of view of naive realism; secondly, the creation of an epistemological concept in a heuristic sense is very valuable for mathematized natural science, because she justified and encouraged his claims. It is no coincidence that this idea was adhered to by Galileo and Boyle, who understood that the basis of an objective, scientific study of objects and natural phenomena should be based on those qualities to which measure and number can be applied, and those qualities to which it is not possible to apply them should be try to reduce to the first. Subsequent advances in optics and acoustics fully justified this approach.
At the same time, the idea of primary and secondary qualities was one of the prerequisites for the emergence of such a variety of empiricism as subjective idealism, represented in modern times by the teachings of D. Berkeley and D. Hume, whose views I. Kant once regarded as "scandal for philosophy" .
in the teaching materials on page 14 there are tasks, there are 12 of them, one of the tasks must be completed
optionally.
Let's do any task! Click "order". We will contact you shortly.
The list of practical tasks for assessing the degree of competencies:
Exercise 1.
Define the specifics of the concepts of "subject" and "object" of knowledge?
Are there fundamental differences between agnosticism, relativism and skepticism?
What is the specificity of cognitive activity? How do the ideal and the material correlate in practice?
What conclusions follow from the absolutization of truth or the exaggeration of the moment of relativity in it?
Compare the concepts of "truth", "falsehood", "delusion", "opinion", "faith".
Describe the concept of truth from the point of view of conventionalism, pragmatism, dialectical materialism.
Can an objectively true value become false over time? If yes, please provide examples to support this.
There is a well-known theory of knowledge. Its essence is expressed in the following words: "... after all, to seek and to know - this is exactly what it means to remember ... But to find knowledge in oneself - this is what it means to remember, isn't it?"
a) What is the name of this theory?
c) What is the meaning of "remembering"?
d) What is common between this theory and the methods of scientific research?
Task 2.
Compare Plato's and Aristotle's ideas about the best way to organize society. Evaluate them: are they real or utopian? Do they have features of historical limitations, or vice versa, portends of the future? Are they humane or inhumane? Are there any ideas that could be taken into account by modern politicians?
Based dialectical ideas Heraclitus, explain the following statements:
a) "The most beautiful of monkeys is ugly when compared with the human race."
b) " Sea water and the purest and dirtiest at the same time: for fish it is drink and salvation, for people it is death and poison.
- "Man is the measure of all things ..." - what philosophical concept does this statement mean?
Is it possible to identify the categories of being and matter, being and thinking? What philosophical positions can be obtained as a result?
What is the specificity of human existence?
Reveal the internal contradictions of natural, spiritual and social life.
Which ancient philosopher owns the statement: “there is existence, but there is no non-existence”? Explain its meaning. What are the qualities of such a being?
“Language is the house of being.” Which of the modern Western philosophers expressed this idea? Explain the relationship between word, thought and being.
What is the opposite of the category of being in philosophy? Give examples from the history of philosophy.
Read the parable.
A professor at a Tokyo university decided to take a few lessons in Zen Buddhism from a famous Master. Arriving at his house, from the doorway he began to talk about why he wanted to take lessons and how much he had already read literature on this topic. The master invited him to come into the house and offered him tea. The professor continued talking, listing the books he had read about Zen. The master began to pour tea into the guest's cup, when the cup was full to the brim and the tea began to pour out of it, the professor exclaimed:
Master, what are you doing, the cup is already full and the water is overflowing!
Unfortunately, your consciousness is very similar to this cup, - answered the Master. - It is filled with all kinds of information, and any new knowledge will overflow. Come next time - with an empty cup.
Comment on this Zen Buddhist parable.
What is the meaning of this parable?
Why, according to the Master, is the “overflowing” consciousness not ready for knowledge?
What knowledge, from the point of view of ancient Indian, Buddhist philosophy, is considered superfluous, unnecessary? Why?
How does Buddhism propose to prepare the mind for the perception of truth? What is the specificity of the perception of reality in the Buddhist worldview?
Compare ideas about the purpose of philosophy in the ancient philosophy of India, China and Greece. What common? What are the differences?
Task 3.
What idea is contained in the following reasoning by J. Bruno: “Since the Universe is infinite and motionless, there is no need to look for its engine ... The infinite worlds contained in it, what are the earths, fires and other types of bodies called stars, all move due to the internal principle, which is their own soul ... and therefore it is in vain to look for their external engine.
Read the saying: "The plurality of being cannot occur without number. Subtract the number, and there will be no order, proportion, harmony, and even the very plurality of being ... The unit is the beginning of any number, since it is the minimum; it is the end of any number, since it - maximum. It is, therefore, absolute unity; nothing opposes it; it is absolute maximum: the all-good God ... "
a) Which of the philosophers of the Renaissance: Leonardo da Vinci, Pomponazzi, Lorenzo Valla, Bruno, Nicholas of Cusa - the author of the statement?
b) What principle of the study of being is contained in this statement?
c) How is being understood in the above passage?
Read the statement: "When I deny the existence of sensible things outside the mind, I do not mean my mind in particular, but all minds. It is clear that these things have an existence external to my soul, since I find them independent in experience from her. Therefore, there is some other soul in which they exist in the intervals between the moments of my perception of them."
To whom does this passage belong? Explain the philosophical position of the author.
Task 4.
- "For the sciences, good should be expected only when we ascend the true ladder, along continuous, and not interrupted steps - from particulars to lesser axioms and then to middle ones, one above the other, and finally to the most general ones. For the lowest axioms differ little from mere experience, while the highest and most general ones (which we have) are speculative and abstract, and there is nothing solid in them, while the middle axioms are true, solid and vital, on which human deeds and destinies depend. they, finally, are the most general axioms - not abstract, but correctly limited to these average axioms.
Therefore, it is necessary to give the human mind not wings, but rather lead and gravity, so that they hold back its every jump and flight ... "
a) What is the method of cognition?
(b) What steps must a person go through in the process of cognition?
17th century French philosopher K. Helvetius compared the process of cognition with a trial: five senses are five witnesses, only they can give the truth. His opponents, however, objected to him, stating that he had forgotten the judge.
a) What did the opponents mean under the judge?
b) What is the epistemological position of Helvetius?
c) What is the merit of such a position? What is its one-sidedness?
Task 5.
Read §1 of I. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and answer the following questions:
What is "pure knowledge" according to Kant? Name its components. How should they be distinguished according to Kant? Why is such a distinction necessary? Give examples of both.
What was the critique of pure experience for Kant? Explain the entire expression, as well as the meaning of the underlined words. Is it possible to call Kant's teaching " transcendental philosophy"? Explain this phrase. What is this philosophy about?
What are Kant's antinomies? What is their meaning? Give examples of such antinomies.
What is the Kantian categorical imperative? What is the relationship between the imperative and the requirement of duty? Suggest your imperative in the spirit of Kant. Will a merchant whose honesty is conditioned by his interest be moral, from the point of view of Kant? What law should a person be guided by?
Can, according to Kant, a moral requirement be a priori? Give some thoughts on this.
What is Kant's practical imperative? Give its formula and prove its truth. What research method did you use?
Task 6.
Compare the following two statements by the Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev:
“Technology is the manifestation of man's strength, his royal position in the world. It testifies to human creativity and ingenuity and should be called by value and good. “In the world of technology, a person ceases to live leaning against the ground, surrounded by plants and animals. He lives in a new metallic reality, breathes in a different, poisoned air. The machine has a deadly effect on the soul ... Modern collectives are not organic, but mechanical ... Technique rationalizes human life, but this rationalization has irrational consequences.
a) What worries the thinker who sang human freedom that allowed the creation of the world of machines?
b) What is meant by "irrational consequences" of a person's rational activity? What is their danger?
Do you agree with the position of S.L. Frank about the difference between belief and unbelief?
"The difference between belief and unbelief is not a difference between two judgments that are opposite in content: it is only a difference between a wider and a narrower horizon. A believer differs from an unbeliever not in the same way that a person who sees white differs from a person who on the same sees black in places; he differs as a sharp-sighted person from a short-sighted person, or a musical person from an unmusical one.
Why, from the point of view of N.A. Berdyaev, freedom of conscience and communism are incompatible: "Freedom of conscience - and above all religious conscience - presupposes that in the individual there is spirituality independent of society. Communism, of course, does not recognize this... In communism on a materialistic basis, the suppression of the individual is inevitable. The individual person is regarded as a brick necessary for the construction of a communist society, he is only a means ... "
Task 7.
What kind of argumentation does Schopenhauer resort to to explain matter and its attributes: "But time and space, each in itself, can be contemplatively conceivable without matter, while matter is not conceivable without them" (A. Schopenhauer).
Comment on this definition of truth.
"What we call the world or reality, meaning by this something external, objective, existing independently of our experience or knowledge, is in fact a picture of the world, or in terms of phenomenalism, a construction from the data of experience." The scheme "world - experience - picture of the world" should be replaced by the scheme "experience - picture of the world - world" (E. Husserl).
a) What is this point of view called?
b) What are the roots of this view?
Read the passage and answer the questions. “Human consciousness is predominantly intellectual in nature, but it could also and apparently should have been intuitive. Intuition and intellect represent two opposite directions in the work of consciousness. Intuition goes in the direction of life itself, intellect ... is subordinate to the movement of matter. For the perfection of mankind, it would be necessary that both these forms of cognitive activity be one... In fact, ... intuition is entirely sacrificed in favor of the intellect ... True, intuition has also been preserved, but vague, fleeting. But philosophy must master these fleeting intuitions, support them, then expand and harmonize them with each other, ... for intuition represents the very essence of our spirit, the unity of our spiritual life.
a) What, according to Bergson, is the advantage of intuition over intellect?
b) Is there any opposition between intuition and intellect in the real process of cognition?
c) How do intuition and intellect really relate in cognition? Compare the point of view of Bergson and dialectical materialism.
Task 8.
Match the concepts of the psyche and consciousness. Can they be identified?
All matter reflects. All matter feels. Are these statements equivalent?
“The brain secretes thought, just as the liver secretes bile. The brain is material, the liver is material, the bile is material, which means that thought must also be material.” Give a critical analysis of this statement.
Compare the definition of consciousness in psychology, physiology, cybernetics and philosophy. What is the specificity of the philosophical approach?
What is the essential difference between the processes of reflection in living and inanimate nature? Arrange in order of increasing level of complexity the following forms of reflection: sensitivity, psyche, consciousness, thinking, irritability, sensations.
Is labor main reason the emergence of human thought? What other concepts of the genesis of consciousness do you know?
Thought does not exist outside the shell of language. Give a philosophical analysis of this judgment.
Can creativity be considered the main difference between human consciousness and machine intelligence? Do you agree with A. Einstein's statement that a machine will be able to solve any problems, but will never be able to pose at least one.
Task 9.
Expand the essence of the post-non-classical stage in the development of science and philosophy.
Specify the main reasons for the formation of the postmodern worldview.
What is the philosophical meaning of the idea of self-organization?
What was the meaning of the concepts of order and chaos in ancient Greek philosophy?
Expand the principles of synergy.
Task 10.
Give a philosophical analysis of the following statements about freedom:
a) “Freedom means the absence of resistance (by resistance I mean external obstacles to movement) ... From the use of the words “free will” one can conclude not about the freedom of will, desire or inclination, but only about the freedom of a person, which consists in the fact that he does not encounter obstacles to doing what his will, desires or inclinations imply. (T. Hobbes)
b) Freedom comes along with man… It is the being of man… The individual is completely and always free.” (J.-P. Sartre)
c) "Freedom is a recognized necessity." (B. Spinoza)
The French philosopher and writer A. Camus wrote in his book "The Rebellious Man" that ideological leading to immorality. In his opinion, it may be worth giving one's life for an individual, but not for an idea. People who die for an idea, A. Camus believes, should not inspire respect in the 20th century.
Do you agree with this point of view? If not, why not?
Why can't an abstract individual be the starting point for characterizing a person? Does the projection of man onto the system exclude public relations consideration of a person as a person?
Feuerbach reduces the essence of religion to human essence. But the essence of man is not an abstract inherent in a separate individual. In its reality, it is the totality of all social relations...
... Feuerbach does not see ... that the abstract individual he analyzes actually belongs to a particular social form.
Task 11.
- "If you choose between Faust and Prometheus, I prefer Prometheus" - this maxim belongs to O. Balzac. Prometheus, who, according to legend, discovered the secret of fire to man, became a symbol of the technical and scientific achievements of civilization. Faust, on the other hand, was concerned about the problem of the meaning of earthly existence and the search for human happiness. How would you solve this dilemma? Justify your decision.
In the book "Being and Nothing" J.-P. Sartre states: "It is absurd that we were born, it is absurd that we will die." Compare this judgment with the statement of the outstanding physicist E. Schrödinger: “Where did I come from and where am I going? This is the great essential question, the same for all of us. Science has no answer to this question."
a) What unites J.-P. Sartre and E. Schrödinger?
b) How to answer the questions posed by E. Schrödinger from a philosophical standpoint?
The Russian philosopher N. Berdyaev notes that the whole tragedy of human life comes from the collision of the finite and the infinite, the temporal and the eternal, from the discrepancy between man, as a spiritual being, and man, as a natural being living in the natural world. What is the fate of man? What is the meaning of life?
Read the article by S.L. Frank The meaning of life // Questions of Philosophy. - 1990. - No. 6. - p.68
How is evil overcome?
What facts of life initiate the question of the meaning of life?
What are the features of the Russian mentality when considering the question of the meaning of life?
What needs to be done to make life meaningful?
What are the conditions for the possibility of the meaning of life?
Why does a person need to be free to achieve the meaning of life?
In what types of "comprehension" of life is the search for the meaning of life realized?
How is the path to the meaning of life realized through worldly and spiritual work?
Task 12.
What concepts do postmodernists use?
Describe the new type of thinking that Gilles Deleuze models in The Logic of Meaning.
What is the essence of “surface art” and its counterpart, humor, in the culture of the 20th century?
What is simulacrum and simulation?
Get acquainted with excerpts from the book "The Logic of Meaning" by the famous French postmodernist J. Deleuze.
“Meaning is a non-existent entity.
Becoming does not tolerate any division or distinction between before and after, past and future. The essence of becoming is movement, stretching in two senses-directions at once. Common sense says that all things have a well-defined meaning; but the essence of the paradox is the assertion of two meanings at the same time.
The paradox of pure becoming, with its ability to elude the present, is the paradox of infinite identity: the infinite identity of both meanings at once - the future and the past, the day before and the day after, more and less, excess and lack, active and passive, cause and effect.
Unlimited becoming becomes an ideal and incorporeal event.
Pure becoming, infinity - this is the matter of the simulacrum, since it avoids the influence of the Idea and jeopardizes both models and copies at the same time.
The event is meaning as such.
Events - like crystals - become and grow only from the borders or on the borders.
Give answers to questions.
What is a simulacrum in Deleuze's explanation?
Under what conditions does a simulacrum arise?
What is the reason for the spread of numerous simulacra in the culture of the twentieth century?
What are the consequences (positive and negative) of the spread of simulacra in culture?
