Home Prayers and conspiracies Bacon, what needs to be given to the human mind is not wings. Questions for self-control

Prayers and conspiracies

Bacon, what needs to be given to the human mind is not wings. Questions for self-control

D. Locke. Sensational concept of the mind.

D. Locke(1632-1704) - English philosopher, sensualist.

Questions:

1. What is the role of the mind in knowledge according to Locke?

2. Why does the mind change a person?

3. What underlies the sensationalist concept?

“If, as has been shown, general knowledge consists in the perception of the conformity or inconsistency of our ideas, and the knowledge of the existence of all things outside of us ... is acquired only through our senses, then what room is left for the activity of any other faculty besides external sense and internal perception? What is the mind for? For a lot of things: both to expand our knowledge and to regulate our recognition of something as true. Reason ... is necessary for all our other intellectual faculties, supports them, and actually includes two of these faculties, namely, insight and the ability to draw conclusions. With the help of the first ability, he seeks out mediating ideas; with the help of the second, he arranges them in such a way that in each link of the chain he finds the connection that holds the extreme members together, and thereby, as it were, pulls out the desired truth. This is what we call "inference" or "conclusion" ...

Sensual experience and intuition are enough for very little.

The greater part of our knowledge depends on deduction and mediating ideas.... The faculty which finds the means and applies them correctly to establish certainty in the one case and probability in the other, is what we call "reason"...

Reason penetrates into the depths of the sea and earth, raises our thoughts to the heights of the stars, leads us through the vast expanses of the great universe. But it does not cover the real area even of material objects, and in many cases it betrays us...

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 we reason about words, which do not designate any ideas, then reasoning deals only with sounds, and with nothing else ... "

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, sensory, rational, theoretical and empirical levels of cognition, cognitive sphere, sensation, perception, representation, concept, judgment, conclusion, abstract, epistemological image, sign, meaning, thinking, reason, reason, intuition, feeling, truth, delusion, lie, 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 capabilities in the study of nature? Explain your answer.

4. “For the sciences, 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 higher than the other, and finally to the most general ones. For the lowest axioms differ little from bare experience. Ohms are true, firm and vital, on which human affairs and destinies depend, and above them, finally, are the most general axioms - not abstract, but properly limited by 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?

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. Empiricists, like the ant, only collect and are content with what they have collected. Rationalists, like the spider, produce fabric from themselves. The bee, on the other hand, chooses the middle way: it extracts material from garden and wild flowers, but arranges and changes it according to its ability. The true work of philosophy does not differ from this either."

a) Do you agree with Bacon?

b) Why does Bacon compare his method to a bee?

c) Confirm concrete examples 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 a lot, but move forward little ... "

a) What mode of knowledge does Bacon reject?

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. "Sensory experience and intuition suffice for very little. Most of our knowledge depends on deduction and intermediate ideas ... The faculty that finds means and correctly applies them 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 we reason about words, which do not designate any ideas, then reasoning deals only with sounds, and with nothing else ... "

a) What direction in epistemology is represented in this judgment?

b) According to Locke, what role does the mind play in the process of cognition?

c) What is the limitation of the human mind in the process of cognition?

11. Consider the statement of R. Descartes:

“In the objects of our research, it is not necessary to look for what others think about them, or what we ourselves assume about them, but something that we can clearly and obviously see or reliably deduce, for knowledge cannot be achieved otherwise.”

a) What method of cognition is referred to in this statement?

b) What are the steps of this method?

c) What criterion of true knowledge does Descartes offer?

d) What errors in the course of cognition does Descartes warn against?

e) What is the limitation of the proposed method of cognition?

12. 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 pure inference about one thing through another cannot be poorly constructed, even among minds that are 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 "Criticism pure mind":

"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. “Knowing the spirit is the most concrete, and therefore the highest and most difficult. Know thyself is an absolute commandment, neither in itself nor where it was expressed historically; it does not matter only self-knowledge directed at individual abilities, character, inclinations and weaknesses of the individual, but the meaning of knowing what is true in a person, true in itself and for itself, 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.

17. Once Hegel, to the remark that his theories do not agree with the facts, replied: "So much the worse for the facts."

How are theory and reality related?

18. According to the figurative comparison of W. Goethe: "The hypothesis is the scaffolding that is erected in front of the building and demolished when the building is ready; they are necessary for the developer; he should not only take the scaffolding for the building."

What errors in knowledge does Goethe warn against?

19. Comment on R. Tagore's poem "The Only Entrance":

We are afraid of delusions, we have locked the door tightly.

And the truth said: "How can I enter now?"

20. "Plato proclaimed to the world: "There is no greater misfortune for a person than to become a misologist, that is, a hater of reason ...

If it were possible to formulate Kierkegaard's most cherished thoughts in a few words, one would have to say: the greatest misfortune of a person is an insane trust in reason and rational thinking. In all his works, he repeats in a thousand ways: the task of philosophy is to break free from power. reasonable thinking, to find the courage in oneself "to seek the truth in what everyone is accustomed to consider as a paradox and absurdity."

"Long before Socrates, Greek thought in the person of the great philosophers and poets peered with fear and anxiety into the ominous impermanence of our fleeting and painful existence. Heraclitus teaches that everything passes and nothing remains. Tragedians, with a tension that we do not meet in world literature, painted a stunning picture of the horrors of earthly existence."

a) In what way Shestov sees the opposite philosophical tradition scientism and Kierkegaard's anti-scientistic conception of human being?

b) Did ancient ontology really lay the foundations for the existentialist concept of being?

c) Is reason "the greatest misfortune of man", as Kierkegaard believed? Express your opinion.

21. "How did it happen that A. Poincaré, who seriously thought about the relativity of physical phenomena, ... missed the opportunity to accomplish the great feat in science that immortalized the name of A. Einstein? It seems to me that I answered this question when I wrote: "Poincaré took a rather skeptical position regarding physical theories, believing that there is an infinite number of different logically equivalent points of view and images that the scientist chooses only for reasons of convenience. This nominalism apparently prevented him from correctly understanding the fact that among logically possible theories there are theories that are closest to physical reality, are closer adapted to the intuition of the physicist and are more suitable to assist his search for truth.

a) What is philosophical meaning this reasoning of L. de Broglie?

b) As from the standpoint of course scientific knowledge Are theory and objective reality related?

c) Can intuition help a physicist to reach the truth about physical reality? Explain how?

d) What direction in epistemology was closer to A. Poincare?

22. “Varawka could speak so well that his words fell into memory like silver coins in a piggy bank. When Klim asked him: what is a hypothesis?” He immediately answered: “This is a dog with which they hunt for truth.”

What properties of the hypothesis are determined by the hero of the novel?

23. In the curiosities of science, the following fact takes place. If the speaker reported that all his experimental results perfectly confirm the prediction of the theory, then the physicist P. L. Kapitsa remarked: “Well, you have made a good“ closure. ”In science, a significant step forward is made by one who discovers a phenomenon that cannot be explained within the framework of existing ideas.”

Did P. L. Kapitsa reveal a real contradiction in scientific knowledge?

Essay topics:

1. "Science is not limited to the accumulation of knowledge, but always strives to streamline and generalize them in scientific hypotheses" (S. Bulgakov)

2. "Cognitive activity always leads to truth or lies" (N.O. Lossky)

3. "Two extremes: cross out the mind, recognize only the mind" (B. Pascal)

4. "Science is the basis of any progress that makes life easier for mankind and reduces its suffering" (M. Sklodowska-Curie)

5. “Not that knowledge is valuable, which is accumulated in the form of mental fat, but that which turns into mental muscles” (G. Spencer)

6. "Knowledge is a tool, not a goal" (L. Tolstoy)

Abstract topics:

1. Rational and irrational in knowledge.

2. Cognition and creativity.

3. The concept of truth in modern philosophical concepts.

4. The relationship of language, thinking and the brain.

5. The value of experience in the process of cognition.

Basic literature from the collections of the SUSU Library:

1. Alekseev P.V. Philosophy: Textbook // Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. - M., 2007.

2. Bachinin V.A. Philosophy: encyclopedic Dictionary// V.A. Bachinin. - M., 2005.

3. Kanke V.A. Philosophy. Historical and systematic course: Textbook for universities // V.A. Kanke. - M., 2006.

4. Spirkin A.G. Philosophy: A Textbook for technical universities// A.G. Spirkin. - M., .2006.

5. Philosophy: Tutorial// ed. Kokhanovsky V.P. - M., 2007.

Additional literature:

1. Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. Theory of knowledge and dialectics. M., 1991.

2. Gadamer H.G. Truth and method. M., 1988.

3. Gerasimova I.A. The nature of the living and sensory experience // Questions of Philosophy. 1997. No. 8.

4. Lobastov G.V. What is truth? // Philosophical sciences. 1991. No. 4.

5. Oizerman T.I. Theory of knowledge. In 4t. M., 1991.

6. Selivanov F.A. Good. True. Communication / F.A. Selivanov. - Tyumen, 2008.

7. Heidegger M. On the essence of truth // Philosophical sciences. 1989. No. 4.

Questions for self-control:

1. Define the specifics of the concepts of "subject" and "object" of knowledge?

2. Are there fundamental differences between agnosticism, relativism and skepticism?

3. What is the specificity of cognitive activity? How do the ideal and the material correlate in practice?

4. What conclusions follow from the absolutization of truth or the exaggeration of the moment of relativity in it?

5. Compare the concepts of "truth", "falsehood", "delusion", "opinion", "faith".

6. Describe the concept of truth from the point of view of conventionalism, pragmatism, dialectical materialism.

7. Can an objectively true value become false over time? If yes, please provide examples to support this.

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 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. Special attention he draws precisely on 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 played 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 is no different from this. 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 course 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 its own nature with the nature of things.” 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 ones ... Therefore, the human mind must be given not wings, but rather lead and gravity, so that they restrain its 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, for in spite of such confidence of people (and even because of it), words gradually penetrate into human consciousness and often pervert 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, this is also a criticism of scholastic philosophy, which is inclined to invent and use 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). These include false theories and philosophical teachings 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 to a greater or lesser extent. 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 techniques (analogy, elimination technique using categorical, conditional-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. For example, gold has yellow, 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 was engaged exclusively in scientific work. 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 reform 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 and 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 directly accepted as true, and must begin with thinking and only from there come to something certain in order to gain a true beginning.” 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 general, and worry little about whether these things exist in nature or not, contain something certain and indubitable. 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 and not the deceptive judgment of an incorrectly 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 undeniable understanding of a clear and attentive mind, which is generated by the light of reason alone ... Thus, everyone can see with the mind that it exists, that it thinks that the triangle is limited only by three lines, and the ball - the only 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 substantiated and deeper than an ordinary 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 science 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 the universal recognition that assures us of the existence of such innate rules?... And if we take a look at people as they are, we will see that in one place some feel remorse because of what others in another place expose 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 by sensory perceptions), he calls sensory ( 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 more empty place; 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 the repeating 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 the name “animal”, then a more general term will be obtained, embracing various other creatures together 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."

A very important element of Locke's thinking 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 solving the problem of the relation of 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 the objective, scientific research objects and phenomena of nature 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, one should 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" .

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:

Tasks for checking the level of competencies:

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:

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.

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. Empiricists, like the ant, only collect and are content with what they have collected. Rationalists, like the spider, produce fabric from themselves. The bee, on the other hand, chooses the middle method: it extracts material from garden and wild flowers, but arranges and changes it according to its ability. 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… That way of using experience that people now use 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 a lot, but move forward little…” 59

b) Why is experience, according to Bacon, the best way to obtain truth?

9. F. Bacon formulates the concepts of ghosts that occur in the course of knowledge:

(b) What is the meaning of each of the ghosts?

c) What method of getting rid of the ghosts of knowledge does Bacon offer?

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 leads us astray, while deduction or pure inference about one thing through another cannot be poorly constructed, even among minds that are 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?

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. “Knowing the spirit is the most concrete, and therefore the highest and most difficult. Know yourself 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 the individual, but the meaning of knowing what is true in a person, true in and for himself, 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"?

a) Analyze this text and determine what worldview positions the author stands on.

1. The problem of method in the philosophy of modern times: F. Bacon's empiricism.

2. Rationalism of R. Descartes.

3. Mechanistic materialism of the Enlightenment

4. Man and society in the works of F. Voltaire and J.-J. Rousseau.

Literature

1. Bacon F. New Organon. // Op. T.2. M., 1972. S.7-36, 83-91.

2. Voltaire F. Philosophical writings. M., 1988.

3. Holbach P. Chosen. Philos. prod. In 2 vol. M., 1963.

5. Kuznetsov V.N., Meerovsky B.V., Gryaznov A.F. Western European Philosophy of the 18th Century. M., 1986.

6. Narsky I.S. Western European philosophy of the 17th century. M., 1984.

7. Rousseau J.-J.. Treatises. M., 1969.

8. Sokolov V.V. European Philosophy XV-XVII centuries. M., 1984.

The philosophy of the New Age of the 16th-18th centuries is the period of formation and formation of many natural sciences (physics, chemistry, mathematics, mechanics, etc.). Therefore, the central place in the problems of this period was occupied by the question of the development of general scientific methods of cognition, and epistemology becomes the leading section of philosophy.

Enlightenment occupies a special place in the philosophy of modern times, and its significance goes far beyond the era when its representatives lived and worked. Almost the entire 19th century passed under the sign of the triumph of the ideas of the Enlightenment. One of the central in the philosophy of the Enlightenment was the doctrine of nature, which had a materialistic coloring and anti-metaphysical orientation. In the opinion of the Enlighteners, the basis of the doctrine of nature should be based on experiments and experiments. Please note that these views bear the seal of mechanism: in the 18th century, chemistry and biology were in their infancy, so mechanics remained the basis of the general worldview. The laws of mechanics in this period were considered universal and applied to both biological and social phenomena. As part of the second question, it is supposed to get acquainted with the ideas of P. Holbach (the work "The System of Nature") and the most striking example of mechanism - the views of J.O. La Mettrie (composition "Man-machine").

Enlighteners saw a radical means of improving man and society in the dissemination of knowledge, science, in enlightenment and the proper education of man. Their worldview and philosophy were based on the belief in the reasonableness of the universe, and therefore in the possibility of building a society in accordance with the reasonable principles of educating a “reasonable” person. It is on the basis of these premises that the third question of the seminar should be opened. What are the views of F. Voltaire and J.-J. Russov on the individual and society? What are their similarities and differences? What spoils human nature and how to fix it? What options did these philosophers offer?

Exercise 1.

“The difference in our opinions does not come from the fact that some people are more intelligent than others, but only from the fact that we direct our thoughts in different ways and do not consider the same things. For it is not enough to have a good mind, the main thing is to use it well. (R. Descartes. Izb. Prod. M., 1960. P. 260).

Questions:

a) Why, starting from the 17th century, did they begin to emphasize the methodological, cognitive aspect of philosophy?

b) Is it possible to put an equal sign between philosophy and epistemology? If not, why not?

c) What modern trend in philosophy reduces philosophy only to problems scientific knowledge?

Task 2.

“For the sciences, good should be expected only when we ascend the true ladder, along continuous, not interrupted steps - from particulars to lesser axioms and then to middle ones, one higher than 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 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 ... "

Questions:

a) What is the method of cognition?

(b) What steps must a person go through in the process of cognition?

Task 3.

French philosopher XVII V. K. Helvetius compared the process of cognition with a trial: the five senses are five witnesses, only they can give the truth. His opponents, however, objected to him, stating that he had forgotten the judge.

Questions:

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 4.

“Having thus reversed all that which, in one way or another, we can doubt, and even assuming all this to be false, we easily assume that there is no God, no Heaven, no Earth, and that even we ourselves have no body - but still we cannot assume that we do not exist, while we doubt the exclusiveness of all these things. It is so absurd to suppose non-existent that which thinks, while it to the most extreme assumptions, we cannot but believe that the conclusion, "I think, therefore I am," is true.

Questions:

a) Which of the philosophers of the New Age owns the expressed idea?

b) What is the original basic principle of cognition embedded in it?

c) What method (formulate it) will provide an opportunity to go through this path of knowledge, to comprehend the truth?

Task 5. F. Bacon (1561-1626)

1. What is truth, according to the philosopher?

2. What are the four idols that lead human knowledge to a false path, does F. Bacon single out?

3. Why does F. Bacon criticize ancient philosophers?

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 ...

The idols of the race find their foundation in the very nature of man ... for it is false to assert that the feelings of man 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.

The idols of the cave are delusion individual person. 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 the authorities before whom one bows, or due to the difference in impressions, depending on whether their souls are prejudiced and predisposed, or cold-blooded and calm souls, or for other reasons ... This is why Heraclitus rightly said that people seek knowledge in small worlds, and not in a large, or general, world.

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, a bad and absurd establishment of words besieges 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 people 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 the idols of the theatre, for we believe that as many as there are accepted or invented philosophical systems, so many comedies staged and played, representing fictional and artificial worlds ... Here we mean not only general philosophical teachings, but also numerous principles and axioms of sciences, which gained strength as a result of tradition, faith and carelessness ...

Bacon F. New Organon // Works. V 2 vol.

Task 6. R .Descartes (1596-1650)

1. Expand the content of the expression "I think, therefore I am." Why was this expression laid the foundations of rationalism as the most influential trend in the philosophy of modern times?

2. On what basis does R. Descartes consider rational knowledge to be more accurate than sensory?

3. According to R. Descartes, what next cognitive steps should be taken after the substantiation of the initial principles?

4. List the basic rules of the deductive method according to R. Descartes. Can this method be considered strictly scientific?

5. What is the ultimate goal of knowledge in accordance with the rationalistic Cartesian method?

[RATIONALISM]

I am, I exist - this is certain. For how long? As much as I think, for it is also possible that I would cease to exist altogether if I ceased to think. Therefore, strictly speaking, I am only a thinking thing, that is, spirit, or soul, or mind, or mind.<…>. What is a thinking thing? It is a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, desires, does not desire, imagines and feels<…>.

[BASIC RULES OF THE METHOD]

And just as the abundance of laws often gives occasion to justify vices, and the state is better governed if there are few laws, but they are strictly observed, so instead of a large number of rules constituting logic, I concluded that the following four would suffice, if only I made a firm decision to constantly observe them without a single deviation.

The first is never to accept as true anything that I would not know as such with obviousness, i.e. to be careful to avoid haste and prejudice, and to include in my judgments only those things which appear to my mind so clearly and so distinctly as to give me no reason to doubt them.

The second is to divide each of the difficulties I am considering into as many parts as it takes to best solve them.

The third is to arrange your 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.

And the last thing is to make lists everywhere so complete and reviews so comprehensive that you can be sure that nothing is missing.

... Thus, if one refrains from accepting as true anything that is not, and always observes the order in which one should be deduced from the other, then there can be no truths either so remote that they are incomprehensible, nor so hidden that it is impossible to reveal them ... And in doing so, I may not seem too vain to you, if you consider that there is only one truth regarding each thing and whoever finds it knows everything that can know about it . So, for example, a child who has learned arithmetic, having made the correct addition, can be sure that he has found everything that the human mind can find regarding the required amount.

Descartes R. Reasoning about the method ... / / Works: In 2 vols. - M., 1989. - T. 1. - P. 260 - 262.

FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626)

[EMPIRICAL METHOD AND THE THEORY OF INDUCTION]

Finally, we want to warn everyone in general, so that they remember about true purposes science and rushed to it not for entertainment and not out of competition, not in order to look haughtily at others, not for the sake of benefits, not for the sake of fame or power or similar lower goals, but for the benefit of life and practice and so that they would improve and direct it towards mutual love. For angels have fallen from the desire for power, but there is no excess in love, and neither an angel nor a person has ever been in danger through it (3.1.67).

We regard induction as that form of proof which takes account of the data of the senses and overtakes nature and rushes towards practice, almost mingling with it.

Thus, the very order of the proof turns out to be directly reversed. Hitherto, business has usually been conducted in such a way that from the feelings and the particular one immediately soared to the most general, as if from a fixed axis around which reasoning should rotate, and from there everything else was deduced through middle sentences: a path, of course, fast, but steep and not leading to nature, but prone to disputes and adapted for them. With us, however, axioms are continuously and gradually established, in order only to arrive at the most general last; and this most general itself does not appear as an empty concept, but turns out to be well defined and such that nature recognizes in it something truly known to it and rooted in the very heart of things (3.1.71-72).

But both in the form of induction itself and in the judgment obtained through it, we are contemplating great changes. For that induction which the dialecticians speak of, and which proceeds by means of a mere enumeration, is something childish, since it gives shaky conclusions, is endangered by a contradictory example, looks only at the habitual, and does not lead to a result.

Meanwhile, the sciences need a form of induction that would produce division and selection in experience and draw the necessary conclusions by means of due exceptions and rejections. But if that usual way of judging by the dialecticians was so troublesome and wearying such minds, how much more will one have to work with this other way, which is drawn from the depths of the spirit, but also from the bowels of nature?

But this is not the end yet. For we also lay the foundations of the sciences deeper and strengthen them, and we take the beginnings of research from greater depths than people have done so far, since we are testing what ordinary logic accepts, as it were, on someone else's guarantee (3.1.72).

After all, the human mind, if it is directed to the study of matter (by contemplating the nature of things and the creations of God), acts in relation to this matter and is determined by it; if it is directed at itself (like a spider weaving a web), then it remains indefinite and although it creates some kind of fabric of science, amazing in terms of the fineness of the thread and the enormity of the labor expended, this fabric is absolutely unnecessary and useless.

This useless refinement or inquisitiveness is of two kinds - it can refer either to the subject itself (such are empty speculation or empty disputes, examples of which can be found in theology and philosophy), or to the method and method of research. The method of the scholastics, however, is approximately as follows: first, they raised objections to any proposition, and then looked for the results of these objections, these results for the most part were only a division of the subject, while the tree of science, like a bunch of twigs in a famous old man, is not made up of individual twigs, but represents their close interconnection. After all, the harmony of the building of science, when its individual parts mutually support each other, is and must be true and effective method refutation of all particular objections (3.1.107).

[ON THE Dignity and Multiplication of the Sciences]

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 chooses the middle way:

she extracts material from garden and field flowers, but arranges and modifies it according to her skill. The true work of philosophy is no different from this. 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 more indestructible (which has not been so far) union of these abilities - experience and reason (3.11.56-57).

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, which is made by mere enumeration, is a childish thing: it gives shaky conclusions and is endangered by contradictory particulars, deciding for the most part on the basis of less than it should be, 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 done, or even attempted, with the exception of Plato, who partly used this form of induction to extract definitions and ideas. But in order to construct this induction or proof well and correctly, it is necessary to apply much that has hitherto not occurred to any mortal, and to expend more work than has hitherto been expended on the syllogism. One should use the help of this induction not only for the discovery of axioms, but also for the definition of concepts. In this induction lies, undoubtedly, the greatest hope (3.P.61-62).

The very same sciences, based more on fantasy and faith than on reason and evidence, there are three: this is astrology, natural magic and alchemy. Moreover, the goals of these sciences are by no means ignoble. After all, astrology seeks to reveal the secrets of the influence of the higher spheres on the lower ones and the dominance of the former over the latter. Magic aims to direct natural philosophy from the contemplation of various objects to great accomplishments. Alchemy attempts to separate and extract the foreign parts of things hidden in natural bodies; the bodies themselves, polluted with these impurities, should be cleansed; release what is bound, bring to perfection what is not yet ripe. But the ways and means which, in their opinion, lead to these ends, both in the theory of these sciences and in practice, abound in errors and all sorts of nonsense (3.1.110).

But the most serious of all errors is the deviation from the ultimate goal of science. After all, some people strive for knowledge by virtue of innate and boundless curiosity, others - for the sake of pleasure, still others - in order to gain authority, fourth - in order to gain the upper hand in competition and dispute, the majority - for the sake of material gain, and only a very few - in order to direct the gift of reason given by God to the benefit the human race (3.1.115-116).

My purpose is to show, without embellishment or exaggeration, the true weight of science among other things and, relying on divine and human evidence, to ascertain its true meaning and value (3.1.117).

Indeed, education frees a person from savagery and barbarism. But the emphasis should be on this word "correct". After all, disordered education acts rather in the opposite direction. I repeat, education destroys frivolity, frivolity and arrogance, forcing one to remember, along with the matter itself, all the dangers and difficulties that may arise, to weigh all the arguments and evidence, both “for” and “against”, not to trust what first attracts attention and seems attractive, and to embark on any path, only having previously explored it. At the same time, education destroys empty and excessive wonder at things, the main source of every unfounded decision, because people are surprised at things either new or great. As for novelty, there is no such person who, having deeply become acquainted with science and observing the world, would not be imbued with a firm thought: “There is nothing new on earth” (3.1.132-133).

Therefore, I want to conclude with the following thought, which, it seems to me, expresses the meaning of the whole reasoning: science attunes and directs the mind so that from now on it will never remain at rest and, so to speak, freeze in its shortcomings, but, on the contrary, constantly stimulate itself to action and strive for improvement. After all, an uneducated person does not know what it means to plunge into oneself, to evaluate oneself, and does not know how joyful life is when you notice that every day it gets better; if such a person accidentally possesses some kind of dignity, then he boasts of it and parades it everywhere and uses it, maybe even profitably, but, nevertheless, does not pay attention to developing it and multiplying it. On the other hand, if he suffers from some defect, he will use all his skill and diligence to hide and hide it, but by no means correct it, like a bad reaper who does not stop reaping, but never sharpens his sickle. An educated person, on the contrary, not only uses the mind and all his virtues, but constantly corrects his mistakes and improves in virtue. Moreover, in general, it can be considered firmly established that truth and goodness differ from each other only as a seal and an imprint, for goodness is marked by the seal of truth, and, conversely, storms and downpours of vices and unrest fall only from clouds of error and lies (3.1.134).

Since college tutors “plant” and professors “irrigate,” I must now speak of the shortcomings in public education. I , Undoubtedly, I condemn in the sharpest way the paucity of pay (especially in our country) for teachers of both general and special disciplines. For the progress of science requires, above all, that the teachers of each discipline should be chosen from among the best and most educated specialists in that field, since their work is not intended to satisfy transitory needs, but must ensure the development of science through the ages. But this can only be done if such remuneration and such conditions are provided with which any, the most outstanding specialist in his field, can be completely satisfied, so that it will not be difficult for him to constantly engage in teaching and there will be no need to think about practical activities. In order for science to flourish, it is necessary to adhere to the military law of David: “So that an equal part goes to the one who goes into battle and remains in the wagon train,” otherwise the wagon train will be poorly guarded. Similarly, science teachers turn out to be, so to speak, the guardians and guardians of all its achievements, which make it possible to fight on the field of science and knowledge. And therefore, the requirement that their payment is equal to the earnings of the same specialists engaged in practical activities is quite fair. If the shepherds of the sciences are not given a sufficiently large and generous reward, then what will happen is what can be said in the words of Virgil:

And so that the hunger of the fathers does not affect the frail offspring (3.1.142-143).

The most correct division of human knowledge is that which proceeds from the three abilities of the rational soul, concentrating knowledge in itself. History corresponds to memory, poetry to imagination, philosophy to reason. By poetry we mean here a kind of fictitious story or fiction, for the verse form is essentially an element of style and thus belongs to the art of speech, which we will discuss elsewhere. History, properly speaking, deals with individuals who are considered under certain conditions of place and time. For although natural history is prima facie concerned with species, this is only due to the resemblance existing in many respects between all the objects that belong to the same species, so that if one is known, then all are known. If, however, objects are found somewhere that are unique in their kind, such as the sun or moon, or significantly deviate from the species, such as monsters (monsters), then we have the same right to tell about them in natural history, with which we tell about outstanding personalities in civil history. All this has to do with memory.

Poetry - in the sense as said above - also speaks of single objects, but created with the help of the imagination, similar to those that are objects of true history; however, exaggeration and arbitrary depiction of what could never actually happen is quite often possible. The same is true in painting. Because it's all a matter of imagination.

Philosophy does not deal with individuals and not with sensory impressions of objects, but with abstract concepts derived from them, the combination and separation of which, on the basis of the laws of nature and the facts of reality itself, this science deals with. This is entirely within the realm of reason (3.1.148-149).

Knowledge in its origin can be likened to water: waters either fall from the sky or arise from the earth. In the same way, the initial division of knowledge must proceed from its sources. Some of these sources are in heaven, others are here on earth. Every science gives us two kinds of knowledge. One is the result of divine inspiration, the other is the result of sensory perception. As for the knowledge that is the result of learning, it is not original, but is based on previously acquired knowledge, just as it happens with water streams that are fed not only from the sources themselves, but also take in the waters of other streams. Thus we divide science into theology and philosophy. Here we mean divinely inspired, i.e. sacred, theology, and not natural theology, which we will talk about a little later. And this first, i.e. inspired by God, we will take it to the end of the work in order to complete our reasoning with it, for it is the harbor and Sabbath for all human reflections.

Philosophy has a threefold subject - God, nature, man, and, accordingly, a threefold path of influence. Nature affects the intellect directly; as if by direct rays; God, on the other hand, acts on him through an inadequate medium (ie, through creations) with refracted rays; a person, becoming himself the object of his own cognition, affects his intellect by reflected rays. Consequently, it turns out that philosophy is divided into three doctrines: the doctrine of the deity, the doctrine of nature, the doctrine of man. Since the various branches of science cannot be likened to several lines diverging from one point, but rather they can be compared with the branches of a tree growing from one trunk, which, before dividing into branches, remains whole and unified in a certain area, then, before proceeding to consider the parts of the first division, it is necessary to admit one universal science, which would be, as it were, the mother of the other sciences and in their development occupied the same place as that common section of the path beyond which the roads begin to diverge in different directions. We will call this science “the first philosophy”, or “wisdom” (once it was called the knowledge of divine and human things). We cannot oppose this science to any other, because it differs from other sciences rather in its boundaries than in content and subject, considering things only in the most general form (3.1.199-200).

We can say that the study of nature should be divided into the study of causes and the obtaining of results: into parts - theoretical and practical. The first explores the bowels of nature, the second remakes nature, like iron on an anvil. I am well aware of the close connection between cause and effect, so that sometimes in the presentation of this question it is necessary to speak of both at the same time. But since every solid and fruitful natural philosophy uses two opposite methods, one ascending from experience to general axioms, the other leading from general axioms to new discoveries, I think it most reasonable to separate these two parts - theoretical and practical - from each other both in the intention of the author of the treatise and in its very content (3.1.207).

And of course, without much damage to the truth, one could now, following the ancients, say that physics studies that which is material and changeable, while metaphysics is mainly that which is abstract and unchanging. On the other hand, physics sees in nature only external existence, movement and natural necessity, while metaphysics also sees mind and idea. [...] We have divided natural philosophy into investigating causes and obtaining results. The study of the reasons we attributed to theoretical philosophy. The latter we divided into physics and metaphysics. Therefore, the true principle of the separation of these disciplines must inevitably follow from the nature of the causes that are the object of research. Therefore, without any ambiguities and roundabouts, we can say that physics is a science that investigates the active cause and matter, metaphysics is the science of form and final cause (3.1.209-210).

We believe that the most correct division of abstract physics is its division into two sections: the doctrine of the states of matter and the doctrine of aspirations (appetitus) and motions (3.1.220).

Let's move on to metaphysics. We attributed to it the study of formal and final causes. This might seem useless as far as forms are concerned, since it has long been firmly held that no human effort can reveal the essential forms of things or their true distinguishing features (3.1.225).