Assignment in the discipline "philosophy". The problem of the method of scientific knowledge Questions for discussion

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.

The definitions and explanations with which learned people are accustomed to arm themselves and protect themselves in no way help the cause. 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 the bare hand nor the mind left to itself has much 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 experiences, 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.

That's why human mind it is necessary to give not wings, but rather lead and gravity, so that they restrain his 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 though everything else that I had 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 allow the more perfect to be 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.

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:

1. 
   Subject and object of knowledge. Structure and forms of knowledge.
2. 
   Features of the sensual and rational in cognition.
3. 
   The problem of truth and error. Criteria, forms and types of truth.
4. 
   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 of material objects, and in many cases it betrays 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.

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.

Bacon sees the task of the new methodology in helping the mind to extract the correct patterns from observations of reality. That such help is necessary is confirmed by an analysis of the delusions or "ghosts" inherent in the human mind. Bacon lists four of these "ghosts": 1) "Ghosts of the Family", 2) "Ghosts of the Cave", 3) "Ghosts of the Market", 4) "Ghosts of the Theater".

"Ghosts of the Kind" are rooted in the very nature of man, in the nature of his mind. Thus, the human mind is inclined to assume in things more order and uniformity than it actually finds: "while much in nature is single and completely unresembling, it invents parallels, correspondences and relationships that do not exist." Further, reason is characterized by a special inertia, due to which it hardly yields to facts that contradict established beliefs. In general, "the human mind is constantly characterized by the delusion that it is more amenable to positive arguments than negative ones." The mind tends to respond more to effects, rather than to subtle phenomena: “The human mind is most affected by what can immediately and suddenly strike him ... To turn to distant and heterogeneous arguments, through which axioms are tested, as if on fire, the mind in general unwilling and incapable until it is prescribed to him by severe laws and strong authority.

The "greed" of the human mind also interferes, not allowing it to stop and dragging it further and further - "to the final causes, which have as their source the nature of man rather than the nature of the universe." Personal tastes and desires also hinder the knowledge of the truth. “A person rather believes in the truth of what he prefers.” But most of all, in the matter of knowing the truth, inertness, imperfection of feelings harms. "Finer motions of particles in solids remain hidden." Finally, “the mind, by its nature, strives for the abstract and thinks the fluid as permanent.”

"Ghosts of the Cave" are due to the individual characteristics of a person, his upbringing, habits, his "cave". They lie in the one-sidedness of individual minds. Some are “inclined to venerate antiquity, others are seized with love for the perception of the new. But few can observe such a measure, so as not to reject what is rightly laid down by the ancients, and not to neglect what is rightly brought by the new. Some think nature and bodies synthetically, others analytically. "These contemplations must alternate and replace each other so that the mind becomes both perceptive and receptive."

The "Ghosts of the Market" are conditioned by social life, misuse of words. “The bad and absurd establishment of words in an amazing way besieges the mind. The greater part of words, however, has its source in common opinion, and divides things along lines most obvious to the mind of the crowd. When a sharper mind and a more diligent observation wants to revise these lines so that they are more in line with nature, words become a hindrance. Hence it turns out that the loud and solemn disputes of scientists often turn into disputes about words and names, and it would be more prudent (according to the custom and wisdom of mathematicians) to start with them in order to put them in order by means of definitions.

"Phantoms of the Theater" - "are not innate and do not enter the mind secretly, but are openly transmitted and perceived from fictitious theories and their perverse laws of evidence." The essence of these "ghosts" is blinding by false theories, preconceived hypotheses and opinions. Bacon divides the delusions of this mud into three: sophistry, empiricism and superstition. The first group includes philosophers (Bacon also includes Aristotle among them), who from trivial facts, by the power of reflection, want to get all the conclusions. Others revolve in a circle of limited experiences and derive their philosophy from them, adjusting everything to it. And, finally, the third kind of philosophers, who, under the influence of faith and reverence, mix theology and traditions with philosophy.

This accurate and subtle analysis of the difficulties of mental work has not lost its significance to the present day.

Bacon - this "ancestor of English materialism" - from his analysis of the nature of human delusions by no means draws a pessimistic conclusion about the impossibility of knowing objective reality. On the contrary, “we build in the human mind a model of the world as it turns out, and not as it will tell everyone to think,” he says. The practical results of science convince us of the possibility of constructing such a correct model of the world. But he also warns against narrow practicality, saying that science needs not so much "fruitful" as "light-bearing" experiments. With the reliable help of method, the mind is able to discover the true "forms" of nature, that is, the laws that govern the course of phenomena.

What are the reasons for this method?

Bacon puts experience and experience, and not primary observation, as the basis of knowledge. “Just as in civil affairs, the talent of each and the hidden features of the soul and spiritual movements are better revealed when a person is subject to adversity than at other times, in the same way, the hidden in nature is more revealed when it is exposed to mechanical arts, than when it's running its course." Experience must be rationalized.

Those who practiced the sciences were either empiricists or dogmatists. Empiricists, like an ant, only collect and use what they have collected. Rationalists, like a spider, create fabric out of themselves. The bee, on the other hand, chooses the middle way, she extracts material from the flowers of the garden and the field, but arranges and changes it with her own skill. 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 put a good hope on a closer and indestructible (which has not been so far) union of these abilities of experience and reason.

"Union of experience and reason" - such is the starting point of Bacon's methodology. Reason must purify experience and extract from it fruits in the form of laws of nature, or, as Bacon puts it, "forms." This process is done by induction. Reason should not soar from particular facts to general universal laws, from which consequences would then be obtained by deductive means. On the contrary, "the human mind should not be given wings, but rather lead and gravity, so that they hold back every jump and flight." “For the sciences… goodness should be expected only when we ascend the true ladder, along continuous, not open and intermittent steps - from particulars to lesser axioms and then to middle ones, one above the other, and, finally, to the most general . For the lowest axioms differ little from bare experience. The highest and most general axioms (which we have) are speculative and abstract, and they have nothing solid. 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 by these average axioms.

The process of inducing or inducing these middle axioms is not a simple enumeration. From the fact that this or that fact will be repeated in n cases, it does not yet follow that it is repeated in n + 1st case. Induction is a more complex analytical process: "one must divide nature by means of due distinctions and exceptions."

The main criterion for the correctness of the result will be practice, the same experience. “Our way and our method ... is as follows: we do not extract practice from practice and experience from experiments (as empiricists), but causes and axioms from practice and experiences, and from causes and axioms - again practice and experiences, as true Interpreters of Nature ".

“Truth and utility are… exactly the same things. The practice itself should be valued more as a pledge of truth, and not because of the blessings of life.

These provisions of Bacon became the cornerstones of the building of the new science. However, Bacon failed to properly understand the dialectic of the movement of concepts and tried to analyze this process purely mechanically. Having correctly pointed out that induction does not consist in a mere enumeration, he himself took the path of enumerating possible groups of facts, or, as he put it, "indicative examples" that help the mind in its analytical work. It would be tedious to list all these twenty-four groups. Bacon's Predominant Examples with their flowery titles. Let us note that one of these names "Examples of the Cross" under the Latin name "experimenturn crusic" has firmly entered science since the time of Newton. That is how decisive experiments are now called, which make it possible to choose between two contending theories one that is more adequate to the facts. Bacon considered it possible to train any mind in the process of scientific induction and to describe this process according to tables. First, according to Bacon, it is necessary to reveal all the facts from which the phenomenon under study appears ("Table of Positive Instances"). Then it is necessary to look for similar facts in which this phenomenon is absent (“Table of Negative Instances”). By comparing such tables, those facts that are not essential for the given phenomenon will be excluded, because it can occur without them, as the table of negative instances shows. A comparison table is then compiled showing the role played by the enhancement of one factor for a given phenomenon. As a result of such an analysis, the desired “form” is obtained.

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 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 on the dialectical ideas of Heraclitus, explain the following statements of his:

a) "The most beautiful of monkeys is ugly when compared with the human race."

b) "Sea water is both the purest and the 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 them own soul... and consequently 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?

French philosopher XVII in. 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. Can Kant's teaching be called "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 praised human freedom, which made it possible to create 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- assumes that in the individual there is a spiritual principle that does not depend on 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 this definition 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 animate and inanimate nature? Arrange in order of increasing level of complexity the following forms of reflection: sensitivity, psyche, consciousness, thinking, irritability, sensations.

Is labor the main reason for the emergence of thinking in a person? What other concepts of the genesis of consciousness do you know?

Thought does not exist outside the shell of language. Give philosophical analysis 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 philosophical meaning ideas 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 a person onto the system of social relations preclude consideration of a person as a person?

"Feuerbach brings religious essence 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?