Each person is a mystery and basically a mystery to himself. Our society, the society of people is the biggest secret, and of course not everyone is able to know this secret, but everyone, I am sure, at least deep down, is trying to reveal this secret for himself. Open it, knowing yourself.
I think that for me personally, the concept of modern science can help. After all, the main goal of modern natural science is the knowledge of the world, the formation of our personal worldview. Now the main function of modern science is technical progress. The modern world has been shaped by a number of factors, the main one being the Scientific and Technical Progress (NTP). The main features of the modern world are determined by the NTP.
Scientific and technical progress – the basis of modern civilization. He is only 300-350 years old. It was then that the industrial civilization arose. NTP permeates the entire civilization (activity, life of people). Everything is connected with NTP, even culture (a reproduction industry of culture products has been created). The next goal – apparently – emotions.
NTP is twofold: it has both positive and negative features. Positive – improving comfort, negative – environmental (comfort leads to an environmental crisis) and cultural (due to the development of communication tools there is no need for direct contact).
The attitude to it is also twofold: despite the intensive development of the Scientific and Technical Progress, there is no such growth at the cultural level. Even on the contrary, there is polarity. Some say that science is good, others – bad.
We present the results of the survey in relation to science in England.
45% – more good (Scientism (SC)); 38% – balanced.
11% – more evil (anti-scientism (ASC)).
Let’s open these two concepts.
Scientism – ideological orientation, glorifying STP.
Anti-scientism is an ideological orientation reproaching science for the fact that it cannot answer the fundamental questions of human existence.
Still, the main goal is a man and once again a man! Man creates the world around him, moves the Scientific and Technical Progress further and further, but the soul of man, his spiritual principle, is the basis of everything. Soul is a concept that is not material, spiritual. Without it, man is a robot programmed to survive.
So what is a worldview? Worldview is a necessary component of human consciousness, cognition. This is not just one of its elements among many others, but their complex interaction. Diverse “blocks” of knowledge, beliefs, thoughts, feelings, moods, aspirations, hopes, connecting in a worldview, appear as a more or less holistic understanding of the people of the world and themselves.
Worldview – education is integral. It is fundamentally important connection of its components, their “alloy”. And as in the alloy, various combinations of elements, their proportions give different results, so something similar happens with the worldview.
The structure of the worldview includes and plays an important role in it generalized knowledge – everyday, or life-practical, professional, scientific. The more solid the stock of knowledge in one or another epoch, of one or another nation or individual, the more serious support can be obtained by the corresponding worldview. The naive, unenlightened consciousness does not have sufficient means for a clear, consistent, rational justification of their views, often turning to fantastic fiction, superstitions and customs.
The degree of cognitive saturation, validity, forethought, internal coherence of a particular worldview is different. Knowledge never fills the entire field of worldview. In addition to knowledge about the world (including the human world), the whole world of human life is also comprehended in the worldview, certain value systems are expressed (ideas of good and evil and others), the “images” of the past and the “projects” of the future are built, and approval or other ways of life, behavior.
Life programs, actions, actions orientation have two “pillars”: knowledge and values. They are in many ways “polar”, opposite in their essence. Cognition is driven by the pursuit of truth – the objective comprehension of the real world. The value consciousness is different: it embodies the special attitude of people to everything that happens in accordance with their goals, needs, interests, one way or another understanding of the meaning of life. In the value consciousness, moral, aesthetic (and ideological) ideals are formed.
The most important concepts with which value consciousness has long been associated, were the concepts of good and evil, beauty and ugliness. Through correlation with norms, ideals, evaluation is carried out – determining the value of what is happening. The system of value orientations plays a very important role in the individual and group, social worldview. For all their heterogeneity, the cognitive and axiological ways of exploring the world in human consciousness, life, action must be somehow balanced, brought into agreement.
The tense unity of other “polar” components, aspects, and worldview levels should also be achieved: feelings and reason, understanding and action, faith and doubt, the theoretical and practical experience of people, understanding the past and the vision of the future. Their correlation, combination, synthesis is a complex and painful spiritual and practical work, designed to ensure the connectedness and integrity of human experience, the entire system of orientations.
A world view — a complex form of consciousness that encloses the most diverse “layers” of human experience — is capable of pushing the narrow confines of everyday life, of a particular place and time, and relating this person to other people, including those that had lived before, will live later. The worldview accumulates the experience of understanding the semantic basis of human life, all new generations of people are attached to the spiritual world of their great-grandfathers, grandfathers, fathers, contemporaries, something, carefully preserving, of something strongly refusing.
So, the worldview is a set of views, assessments, principles that determine the most common vision, understanding of the world.
The life of people in society is historical. Slowly, now rapidly, intensively, in time, all the components of the socio-historical process change: technical means and the nature of work, relations between people and the people themselves, their thoughts, feelings, interests. The worldview of human communities, social groups, individuals is also subject to historical changes. It actively catches, refracts large and small, overt and hidden processes of social change.
Speaking about worldview on a large socio-historical scale, they mean extremely common beliefs prevailing at a certain stage of history, principles of cognition, ideals and norms of life activity, that is, they highlight the common features of the intellectual, emotional, spiritual mood of a particular era. And in reality, the worldview is formed in the minds of specific people and is used by individuals and social groups as the life-defining common beliefs. And this means that, apart from the typical, total features, the worldview of each epoch lives, operates in a variety of group and individual variants.
Strictly speaking, each person or social group, singled out on a particular basis (for example, by class, social status, level of education, profession, adherence to any religion and others), has its own, not all coinciding with others, and sometimes very different from them the most common ideas about the world and life programs. And yet, in the variety of variants of historically changing worldviews, it is possible to distinguish a number of enlarged gradations, types.
In the future, I will proceed from the three main types of worldviews adopted for us – the Europeans, without affecting many others. These are CHRISTIANITY, MATERIALISM and THEOSOPHY. For each of the above-mentioned worldviews, there are a number of questions that help us reveal their essence.
God or matter? Two worlds or one? The Christian tells us: “God is.” And what is God? God is love, infinite love, love for people, for the world, for everything in general. God is the creator, the creator of the universe, that is, that which surrounds us all, that which we see and feel daily. Subconsciously, we feel that there is some kind of power. What is it? Secret. Christian teaching says that God is infinite power, but materialists claim the exact opposite. For them, there is no God, and there is no some kind of powerful spiritual power that dominates the universe, but only matter exists. I do not adhere to any of these worldviews separately, but I am more inclined to materialistic.
I believe that a supporter of each of them, and perhaps anyone who is convinced of one thing, and any other denies, is a fanatic who I am not in any way. In my understanding, the world is material, but still there is some kind of power beyond my understanding. You can call this “higher intelligence.” I do not agree with the theosophical point of view that there is neither god nor matter, but only a certain spiritual principle, since I do not consider the “higher mind” to be a certain spiritual principle. It may or may not be material, but it is taller than us in its essence. Materialism is inherently very convincing, as it is based on experiment. What is not proven is not a fact. But the fact that matter has existed forever and endlessly and there is no beginning is a very controversial fact. Their new conviction that the world arose as a result of the “Big Bang” is also not very convincing. After all, it is also possible to say that God created the world from himself and there is nothing at the beginning of the beginning, that is, God.
So how does the universe work? For Christians, these are two worlds – visible and invisible. The visible is where we live, what we see around us, so to speak, and the invisible is the kingdom of the Lord: heaven and hell. For materialists, this is the material world consisting of the smallest particles, the world knowable by science and only by it. The materialists recognize the spiritual world, but it is generated by the power of the mind. Theosophy claims that the world is a kind of spiritual matter, that it consists of levels of entities. I consider that the world is material, but for me some phenomena are incomprehensible and until I fully understand them, I can hardly answer this question completely.
The Bible, like the book that people wrote with the words of God, says that life without God is impossible. She talks about the divine origin of life. Christianity develops the idea of the one God that has matured in Judaism, possessing absolute goodness, absolute knowledge and absolute power. All creatures and objects are his creations, all created by a free act of divine will. The two central tenets of Christianity speak of the trinity of God and the Incarnation of God.
According to the first, the inner life of a deity is the relation of three “incarnations”, or persons: the Father (the beginningless principle), the Son, or the Logos (the semantic and formulating principle), and the Holy Spirit (the life-giving principle). The Son is “born” of the Father, the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Father. At the same time, the “birth” and “emanation” take place not in time, since all the faces of the Christian Trinity have always existed – “pre-eternal” – and are equal in worth – “equal in honor”.
Man, according to Christian doctrine, is created as a carrier of the “image and likeness” of God. However, the fall into sin committed by the first people destroyed the human likeness of man, putting a stain of original sin on him. Christ, having accepted the torments of the cross and death, “redeemed” people, having suffered for the whole human race.
Therefore, Christianity emphasizes the cleansing role of suffering, of any restriction by a person of his desires and passions: “by accepting his cross”, a person can overcome evil in himself and in the surrounding world. Thus, a person not only fulfills God’s commandments, but also transforms himself and makes an ascent to God becomes closer to him. This is the purpose of the Christian, his justification of the sacrificial death of Christ. This concept of man is associated only with Christianity, the concept of “sacrament” – a special cult action, The called-up man really introduces the divine into the life of a person, first of all – baptism, communion, confession (repentance), marriage, unction.
But this fact is very dubious, as it is based on the personal experience of the creators, not confirmed by real experiments. The materialistic worldview is good in everything and very convincing, except for their belief that life arose by chance. After all, as you know, nothing leaves nowhere without a trace and does not just appear out of nowhere. Theosophists consider the alien origin of life the most acceptable for themselves. If we really think about it, then the theosophical point of view on the question of the origin of life is more or less acceptable. After all, what is alien life, we still do not know. So even God may have something to do with aliens. Everything that a person cannot explain, he tries to explain with something unusual, supernatural.
So what is the meaning of life? This question, perhaps, people always set for themselves. Whether they are materialists or Christians, theosophists or people of other views. This question is not only for those who live in today’s day. Christians believe that man lives in order to connect with God. Materialists pursue scientific, material interests, improve their well-being from generation to generation. Theosophists seek to connect with the “higher” energy. They all aspire to something higher. Although for each of them these are completely different things. What is the meaning of life for me, I still do not know exactly. And is there any sense of life at all? To know the unknown – this is probably the meaning of life. Find yourself in this vain world. See something that others can not and do not lose yourself as a person.
The meaning of the story for me is the story itself. Cognition, assessment of what happened. A person must learn from the mistakes of others in order not to make his own and others’ victories in order to improve himself. Christians believe that the meaning is in movement from birth in sin to complete purification in the kingdom of the Lord, by eliminating in oneself any manifestation of sin and a wholehearted desire for God. Materialists believe that the meaning is in changing formations and building a more perfect society. Change races, by burning in the fire of one and the birth of another. We are now for them the fifth race.
Is there death? Not! There is no death, and there can be no, because a person dying, remains to live in his spiritual state. He seems to be born again, unites with God. So say Christians. And the materialists? There is death. There is death, and when dying, man merges with the common charge – this is the theosophical world view. I am more inclined to the point of view of the materialists. Their position seems to me the most acceptable from the side that it is what I see it in reality. The world around me is material. And what happens after death is a mystery. I only see that a man has died, turned to dust, in the real world he is no more. There is no such as I knew him. Although maybe he is in someone or something and reincarnated. I can not judge this. This is only speculation.
In connection with all the above, it can be said that in modern society the worldview situation is very complicated. A lot of people speak about God, at the same time adhering to purely material interests and practically contradicting themselves in many respects ..
Quickly say about the features of the modern world can not. Therefore, we mean features that are important for further discussion. A huge and growing human activity. It became equal on the scale of the Earth with the action of physical forces (earthquakes, etc.). The scale of this activity is exponentially dependent on population growth.
1850 – 1,000,000,000 people.
1986 – 5,000,000,000; in the present. time close to 6 000 000 000.
Strengthening the integrity and integrative trends of the modern world. This feature in our country has been considered since 1984. Then they forgot about it.
The main thesis is: “Unification in the manner and forms of life” (single information network, transnational corporations, etc.). However, along with this phenomenon, there is a tendency towards separatism (that is, people want to keep at least the minimum set of their distinctive features from other nations).
Everyone knows that modern society is characterized by global crises that only say that a change of world view is now urgently needed. Either we all go the other way, humane in relation to the world, by, or our civilization will disappear forever. A lot of them. Let’s pay attention to especially global (crises that can be solved by the efforts of a large number of people).
- Moral
- Ecological
- Demographic
The degradation of man, the destruction of his consciousness, the decline of morality, is all a moral crisis that will lead to the destruction of the world.
The main problem is that everyone wants to live as in the United States of America, i.e. produce a lot, but also receive a lot. But for most it is impossible to live like that. The planet will not survive this (limited possibilities of nature: resources, ecology, etc.). It is also due to the demographic problem. By 2100, the population will be 10-12 billion, and 9/10 will live in developing countries. There will be a problem with them. Thus, the overpopulation of the planet, the demographic crisis, will lead to the fact that people simply have nowhere to live, will begin global world wars for a place under the sun.
But perhaps the ecological crisis will destroy our civilization much faster than we think. The destruction of the ozone layer of the Earth already affects the climate of the planet. Natural ecological balance is disturbed. Global warming will cause the global drought to begin first, and if the sun melts the ice of the Antarctic and the Arctic, then the entire civilization will disappear under water, which later under the influence of the shedding Sun will also disappear, taking with them the last forms of life.
CJ. Rousseau has been actively criticizing the strengthening of technocratism and rationalism. From 60-70, a new trend based on the ecological principle (forecasts of the Club of Rome). In our time, criticism goes on these two principles together. Science does not carry out the educational activities that have been expected before. The world outlook value of science does not worry in the proper degree neither the church, nor people, nor the scientists themselves. In this regard, science is not interested in state structures, they are interested in economic issues related to science.
As a cultural phenomenon, science has lost its position, remaining just the foundation of modern civilization.
We come to the line, when from our own successes We can die as a civilization. Progress leads to the death of mankind. Modern civilization has created a worldview that is incompatible with the existence of civilization itself.
So what is the way out of this situation? Natural change of worldview. In all historical epochs, ideological views, ideas based on common sense, extensive and diverse everyday experience have found themselves and continue to be important today. They are often called “the philosophy of life. This spontaneously folding form of the worldview encompasses a world-view, a mentality of wide sections of society. This layer of consciousness is very important because it is a massive and really “working” consciousness.
That is why, by the way, it is so necessary that the principles of the new political, economic, environmental, social and moral thinking that are being affirmed today in our country touch not a few, but enter the minds of thousands, millions of people, become the impetus of their Life and actions. But it is in general. And in particular?
New lifestyle, new mode of production, new family. Replacing technology with a more progressive, environmentally friendly, environmentally friendly, raising the moral character of the population, through the knowledge of spiritual values and their penetration into the masses, raising the standard of living, turning to the human mind, to a scientific understanding of what is happening. In some highly developed, privileged countries, this is a birth control program, the so-called “Two Billions” program, the point of which is to leave two billion people on the planet and thereby solve the problem of overpopulation. But this is hardly an option, because it is pure racism. Racism in the general sense of the word.
This is from the standpoint of materialism.
If we take the Christian worldview, then this is an appeal to God, living according to the laws of God. And in principle, if everything on Earth would have happened according to the laws of God, there would have been no global crises, and it’s quite likely that society would not come to such a dead end. Although Christians have another point of view. According to their conviction everything that is around us is dust, only a material shell, and the main life comes only after death in the kingdom of the Lord, so that everything that happens around is only fuss and absolutely no matter what happens next on earth. After all, the Apocalypse is coming and the whole material world will burn in a fiery hyena.
Theosophists also have a rather anti-world attitude towards the world around them. The world of today will burn in the FIRE and after it a new one will appear, so why bother with the present, because the material shell is a temporary phenomenon.
Many examples can be cited, but I will describe only one. This is another understanding of crises and ways out of them. Perhaps it is very similar to the previous ones. Perhaps this is a utopia, but this is one of the ways out.
In the middle of our century, the book “Rose of the World” was written by Daniel Andreev – a follower of Vladimir Solovyov. This philosophical treatise was created by the author in a political prison, in prison and is, according to critics, one of the most unusual books of the twentieth century. D. Andreev is trying to show in the “Rose of the World” ways to prevent the two worst evils in the modern world – world wars and world tyranny, ways of changing society in the universal human fraternity. He says that in the world there is an authority that for many years has been claiming to become the only, unrelenting unifier of people, preventing from them the danger of a war of all against all, the danger of falling into chaos. Such an instance is a state. Since the end of the tribal system, at all historical stages, the state has been an essential necessity.
On the bitter experience, mankind is convinced that neither socio-economic movements, ruled by bare reason, nor the achievements of science, are in themselves able to lead mankind between tyrannies and world wars. Science is becoming an obedient servant of political despots, far more docile and reliable than the church for feudal lords. The tragedy, according to Andreev, is rooted in the fact that scientific activity from the very beginning was not associated with a deeply thought-out moral education. Everyone was allowed to this activity, regardless of their level of moral development. It is not surprising that every success of science technology is now turned by one side against the genuine interests of mankind.
Thus, the experience of history brings us to the understanding of the obvious fact that the dangers will be prevented and social harmony is achieved not through the development of science and technology in themselves, not by the development of the state, not by the coming to power of pacifist organizations of social democratic type – but setting The World Federation of States is some kind of pure, incorruptible, highly authoritative instance, an ethical, non-state and supranational instance, for the nature of a state is non-ethical in its to society.
Andreev conditionally calls this instance the League of Transformations of the essence of the state. Its tasks: consistent implementation of comprehensive reforms, education of a person with a refined image, replacement of coercion with voluntariness, shouts of an external law with a voice of deep conscience, should prepare the ground for the creation of the Federation of States. In this case, the path to global unification will lie through a ladder of various levels of international solidarity, through the unification and merging of regional communities; The last step of such a ladder will be a world referendum.
For the implementation of such an ethical supra-state system, D. Andreev sees it necessary to create a doctrine that is highly world-wide – moral, political, philosophical, and religious. The fact that the last major religious movement in humanity – the Protestant Reformation – took place 400 years ago, and the last religion of world significance, Islam, has 13 centuries of its existence, is sometimes put forward as an argument in favor of the opinion that the religious era in humanity has come to an end. A more specific goal of this doctrine is to unite the Earth into a federation of states with an ethical controlling authority over it, spread material wealth and a high cultural level to the entire population of all countries, educate generations of people with a refined image, unite churches, turn the planet into a garden, and Brotherhood.
In the implementation of these ideals, Andreev assigns an important role to art. The experience of the last centuries and the growth of personality have led to the fact that human consciousness feels the conventionality and tightness of any dogma. Consequently, however adamant the theses of the Rose of the World would be, no matter how much they are imbued with the spirit of religious dynamics, many will find it difficult to accept even them.
But sets and sets will respond to her call, if he is addressed not so much to the intellect, as to the heart, sounding in the brilliant creations of the word, music, theater, architecture. Images of art leave more freedom to the imagination, they provide everyone with an interpretation of the doctrine as it is more organic and understandable for his individuality. Andreev emphasizes that the absolute value of the individual lies in the fact that it contains the only-begotten with God abilities of creativity and love.
And it is in this that I see the temptation of this idea. The book of D. Andreev is permeated with hope for a bright future, that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will witness the coming of the Rose of the World to power over all the earth. He writes: “… Let us recall the horsemen of the Apocalypse. Only the sequence of horsemen in history is not the one that the seer had predicted on the island of Patmos: Black was the first to rush away – the era of the domination of ierocracy on a feudal basis. Now the horseman of the second ends, Red: everyone will understand that lurking behind this symbol.
We will give examples when the worldview is formed under the influence of knowledge and experience of people in various fields of activity. So, rightfully they say about the worldview of scientists, engineers, politicians, officials. Generalizations of life experience through the activities of teachers, publicists, writers, representatives of creative professions in various types of art are being introduced into the public consciousness, they really live and function in it. The current situation clearly demonstrates that people who make up the color of science, culture, deeply and extensively reflecting on major, vital problems, have a formative effect on the public worldview.
Take for example the Christian worldview. Christians who are convinced that nothing is more primitive than God, that God the creator and ruler, live by the laws of God, and the world is represented and created according to these laws, that is, according to the holy Bible. For them, the Bible is a source of knowledge, their teacher. In the Middle Ages, when materialism had not yet developed, as a practically accepted worldview, the Christian worldview prevailed in Europe. The church stood above society, and it was precisely according to its laws that it developed. Medieval knights in the name of Christ performed feats and went on crusades. Not for nothing they called the Crusaders.
They carried on their shields the holy cross-symbol of the Christian faith and were ready to die for it, to die for God. So strong was their faith. The Holy Inquisition eradicated any manifestations of heresy, thereby preventing the development of a more progressive materialistic worldview. The head of state was almost completely dependent on the church and its high-ranking ministers. So we can say that in those days the Christian worldview completely determined the behavior of man and society.
Ideological ideas that arise in the process of scientific, artistic, political, and other creative work can, to a certain extent, influence the thinking of professional philosophers. A striking example of this is the enormous influence of the works of Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor M. Dostoevsky on domestic and world philosophy.
The worldview, expressed in its everyday, typical, mass, elementary manifestations, contains not only a rich “memory of the ages”, convincing life experience, skills, traditions, faith and doubts, but also many prejudices. Such a world view is sometimes poorly protected from mistakes, subject to the influence of unhealthy moods (nationalistic and others), modern (“myths” (for example, vulgarly interpreted equality) and other not quite mature manifestations of public consciousness, not to mention the purposeful influence of those who pursue their narrowly egoistic the goals of certain social groups are not immune from such influences and the views of some people who are professionally engaged in scientific, literary, engineering and other work.
At all times, a person is trying to determine for himself what the truth is.
The problem of the truth of knowledge, the criteria of truth has long been interested in prominent minds. Without a solution to the problem for itself, not a single field of knowledge has managed and does not do now, be it a science based on axiomatics, once and for all, or on a continuously changing and refined basis. Views on this problem are constantly changing. New concepts of understanding and learning about the world were proposed and refined. One way or another, the world is known by man and transformed depending on the depth and quality of the knowledge gained. Here we are inevitably faced with the question: is our knowledge of the world true, corresponding to our conclusions from very limited experience?
Let us try to look at man and humanity from the position of the possibility of transferring knowledge to each other, the ability of a person to explore the phenomenon and draw conclusions. By the ability to transfer knowledge, we understand a certain set of elementary actions that express certain transmitting thoughts, interpretation of these elementary actions by the recipient, and creating sufficiently close thoughts and images with the transmitting subject, that is, communication of subjects is possible only in “human” actions invented “by man (limited by feelings).
Interpretation of individual thoughts in a “universal” language (oral, written, and so on) leads to loss and inaccuracy of sensations. Thus, for understanding and understanding the world and its place in it, a person needs constant improvement, expansion and refinement of public terms (meaning not only scientific terms, but art as well). So, initially the person can explore the world around, but only the “reflected”, interpreted in human consciousness, in human terms and concepts.
Therefore, to expand our knowledge of the world, it is necessary to expand, deepen and refine the terms and concepts used by man. The process of mental activity is learned through the same speculative process, and as a result carries a minimum of information about the person himself. Mankind has repeatedly attempted to research and systematize the issues of the emergence of new concepts, using only the “intuitive” abilities to comprehend the new. Expansion of concepts is possible only in the course of research into the process of their origin. The more clearly a person will see himself, the deeper will be the knowledge of the laws of thinking, the brighter and more diverse will the surrounding world seem.
So what is truth as a concept? Truth is the most adequate understanding of the world. This is the best world view. But there is no single truth for everyone, just as there is no single world outlook. For example, scientific truth is a scientific picture of the world, which is constantly changing, but its material essence, the foundation remains unified.
But to know the truth is quite difficult and in many respects it depends on what source of knowledge to turn to. If you turn to a scientific source, we get the scientific truth. If to Christian, then Christian. To a rational source of knowledge – rational truth. And if to the theosophical, then naturally we get the theosophical. Also if we turn to any other source of knowledge. Well, for example Muslim. After all, it cannot be argued that there are only four sources. There are many of them. We simply choose to consider only four.
For example, Aristotle believed that knowledge was true, it should not only be a concept about an object. In addition, the very object of knowledge can be not transitory, not changeable, not current being, but only being imperishable, abiding. Such cognition is possible, although individual objects, in which only the eternal essence exists, are always only transient, fluid objects. And such knowledge can only be knowledge of the “form.” This form of each object is eternal: it does not arise and does not perish.
In Aristotle, truth is seen as the highest form of being. Man, realizing the truth, is approaching perfect being. But there are many difficulties on this path. “To explore truth in one respect is difficult, in another it is easy. This is evident from the fact that no one is able to achieve it properly, but not everyone fails completely, and everyone says something one by one, however, adds little or nothing to the truth, but when it all adds up, a noticeable amount is obtained. … It is also true that philosophy is called knowledge of truth.
In fact, the goal of speculative knowledge is truth, and the goal of knowledge relating to activity is the case: after all, people are active even when they consider things, what they are, and they do not examine things, but the thing in its relation to something even now . But we do not know the truth, not knowing the reasons. ”Christianity (from the Greek word christos -“ anointed one ”,“ Messiah ”) was born as one of the sects of Judaism in the 1st century. ne in Palestine.
This original relationship with Judaism – extremely important for understanding the roots of the Christian religion – is also manifested in the fact that the first part of the Bible, the Old Testament, is the sacred book of both Jews and Christians (the second part of the Bible, the New Testament, is recognized only by Christians and is for they are the most important). Spreading among the Jews of Palestine and the Mediterranean, Christianity already in the first decades of its existence conquered adherents among other nations.
The emergence and spread of Christianity fell on a period of deep crisis of the ancient civilization and the decline of its basic values. Christian teaching attracted many who were disillusioned with the Roman social order. It offered its adherents a way of inner salvation: a departure from a spoiled, sinful world to oneself, within one’s own personality, opposed to strict carnal pleasures by strict asceticism, and the arrogance and vanity of the “mighty of this world” —conscious humility and submission — that will be rewarded after the advent of God’s Kingdom on the ground. In Christianity, the Bible is considered to be the source of knowledge.
Historically, he was the first. The Bible is a holy scripture, the beginning of which was laid by Moses. God told him the ten commandments so that Moses would bring them to the people. But in the form of a book, these covenants of God appeared much later. As we know, the Bible was written according to the words of the prophets of people who heard the voice of God. It was a revelation to them. But the fact that this revelation was only for a narrow circle of people and that the scripture was stated by people, albeit with the words of God, gives us reason to doubt the truth of this source. But for Christians this source is unshakeable. The discussion of the truth of the Bible is a blasphemy for them.
The religious source of knowledge is based on the religious experience of religious personal experiences, actions that occurred with a particular person or group of people, their religious miracles. This experience is not transmitted to anyone else, since it can not be repeated in other conditions. The greatest miracle is, of course, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The revelation of the Lord is also an enormous religious experience for the prophets, to whom the Word of God was given. This is a mighty source, but it is subjective because it is limited to a certain circle of people chosen by God. I personally have not met directly with religious experience and can judge it only from the words of the Bible and people committed to Christianity.
In Theosophy, the source of knowledge is contained in the theosophical writings of E. B. The work and research they have done is of course grand and is a kind of Bible for the Theosophists. The fact that what was described in the volumes of Blavatsky was, as it were, dictated to her by a voice from above, and in a rather short period of time, gives, of course, grounds for reflection. This is true of the Theosophists, and one cannot but agree. Like any teaching, it has the right to exist. But it is very mysterious and inexplicable, it means incomprehensible, and I consider it utopian.
Historically, the scientific source of knowledge arose from human contradictions. Man felt dissatisfaction with the idea that religion imposed on him. He sought to know the world. He himself wanted to explain the processes and phenomena that occurred around him. And it is quite natural. Man always seeks knowledge. He needs to get in touch with the world himself. Find out how it works.
At the same time, the idea of autonomy of mind appears. Its foundation is laid by Thomas Aquinas (Aquinas). The idea is that the human mind, independently of itself, can learn nothing. The path of knowledge is the human mind. The mind is completely separated from religion. In the future, the idea of autonomy of mind is manifested in rational thinking.
Brief biography of Immanuel Kant Immanuel Kant was born in the Kingdom of Prussia in 1724, in the city of Königsberg, in the family of an artisan – a master of a saddle shop. He graduated from high school and the University of Königsberg. At first he worked as a home teacher. From 1755 he taught at the University of Königsberg and only at 46 years old / in 1770 / received a professorship in logic and metaphysics / was the dean of the faculty and was twice elected the rector of the university /. During the seven-year war, Koenigsberg was occupied by Russian troops, and in 1794 Immanuel Kant was elected a member of the Russian Academy.
Although Kant’s books began to be published in the 1970s, he became widely known only in the last decade of the 18th century. Feeling that he began to become decrepit, Kant abandons teaching, but continues his philosophical studies.
In 1804, Kant died. He is buried in Königsberg / Kaliningrad / on Kant Island.
The most important thing in the world is man, for he is for himself his last goal. Human rights must be considered sacred.
I. Kant
In the works of Kant’s “critical period”, the problems of the theory of knowledge, ethics, and questions about expediency in nature were considered as interrelated and interdependent.
First of all, it relates to the formulation of theoretical and cognitive problems, which, according to Kant’s concept, have been completed in aesthetics.
… In analyzing the process of cognition, Kant emphasized conceptual thinking (“thinking is knowledge through concepts”), indicating that, in addition to contemplation, there is only one way of knowing, namely knowledge through concepts, not intuitive, but discursive. In the Critique of Pure Mind, Kant answered the question of what truth is as follows: truth is possible only in the form of an object, that is, as the correspondence of reason (the very form of universality and necessity) and feeling (an empirical variety of sensations arising in a priori forms time and space).
Objectivity was understood, as a rule, the location of sensations in space and in time, which involves the use of pure reason (categories) and with which the subjective connections of perceptions are objective and universal. “Kant distinguished and distinguished contemplation and reason, assigning to each a certain role in the cognitive process. However, he constantly emphasized their interconnection: “Without sensuality, no object would be given to us, and without reason no one could be thought. Thoughts without content are empty, contemplation without concepts are blind. Therefore, it is equally necessary to make one’s own knowledge sensual (that is, to attach an object to it in contemplation), and to comprehend one’s own contemplation with reason, that is, to bring them under concepts. These two abilities cannot function as each other.
Reason cannot contemplate anything, and feelings cannot think anything. Only from their connection can knowledge arise. ” In Kant’s work, an attempt is made to look at the process of cognition not from the outside, but from within the person. The limited ability of human cognition is shown.
“All that is contrary to the laws of reason and reason is impossible in all cases; however, the fact that, being the subject of pure reason, does not obey only the laws of contemplative knowledge, the situation is different. After all, this discrepancy between sensual and rational ability only indicates that the mind often cannot express concretely and transform into contemplation those abstract ideas that it received from reason. But this subjective difficulty, as is often the case, mistakenly seems to be some kind of objective contradiction and easily introduces the wanderings of imprudent people, forcing them to take the boundaries of the human mind beyond, which contain the very essence of things. ” Philosophy, which studied knowledge in the samples that existed in science of that time, came to at least two established positions. The constant incompleteness of experience led rationalists to the conclusion that only reason can communicate knowledge of universality and necessity. Therefore, knowledge is produced by the mind. Empiricism, on the contrary, no less convincingly proved that without feelings, without response, no knowledge can arise and, therefore, knowledge is a product of experience. Probably, we can agree with N. K. Vakhtomin, asserting the following: “Taking into account these views, Kant began to reason as follows. He accepted the idea that experience suffers from incompleteness.
The perfection of knowledge is communicated by the mind, attributing to objects what it takes from itself. Reason in the broad sense of the word means the self-activity of the subject, which includes both a priori forms of reason (category) and a priori ideas produced by the mind in the narrow sense of the word. A priori forms of sensual contemplation and reason, different from experience, tell the reliability of the knowledge gained in experience. ”
This is a new position in comparison with the views of both rationalists and empiricists. So, if Kant’s predecessors set the problem of the origin of knowledge in the form of a dilemma (knowledge is a product of experience, and knowledge is produced by reason), then Kant solved it like this: scientific knowledge arises from experience through a priori forms of contemplation and reason.
Along with concrete scientific knowledge, it was necessary to explain the uniqueness of philosophical knowledge. Such a task was not set by the predecessors of Kant. Kant proposed the following: philosophical knowledge goes beyond experience, if the answer gives the phenomena that make up the content of concrete scientific knowledge, then philosophical knowledge refers to things in themselves, such as soul, freedom, God. This knowledge, which leaves the sphere of experience, cannot pretend to authenticity. It is the subject of faith and is necessary only for practical activities. In relation to things in itself, Kant saw the originality of philosophical knowledge. And since this knowledge cannot pretend to authenticity, then philosophy, as a branch of knowledge, needs to be transformed. It cannot be a science of being, but should be a science of knowledge, of the limits of the mind, of its capacity for a priori knowledge.
Unlike its predecessors, Kant believes the a priori nature of not only the activity of the intellect, but also of the senses. This is a priori contemplation. With the help of a priori contemplation, only phenomena can be cognized, but not things in themselves. The “thing in itself” remains unrecognized by us, although it is in itself and valid. By thinking about things themselves, the mind induces incompleteness of experience. Within experience, knowledge can expand to infinity. But no matter how much it expands, we will never know things on their own. In this respect, experience is imperfect. “According to N. K. Vakhtomin, Kant distinguishes the following types of knowledge:
- from experience
- what happened from a general rule that was once borrowed from experience. The latter are a priori, pure knowledge. “From a priori knowledge,” explained Kant, “that knowledge is called pure, to which nothing empirical is added at all.”
It is characteristic of the common Kantian logic that it does not borrow anything from psychology. The laws of general logic are, according to Kant, negative, or formal, criteria true. Since general logic gives formal truth, Kant calls it analytics.
But Kant has another, namely, transcendental logic. Characteristic features of Kantian transcendental logic are as follows:
1) If general logic abstracts from the question of the origin of knowledge and considers only a logical form in relation to knowledge to each other, that is, a form of thinking in general, then transcendental logic should also investigate the origin of our knowledge of objects.
2) The department of transcendental logic, called analytics, is, as Kant says, the “logic of truth”.
3) One of the tasks of transcendental logic is the union of form and “matter”, that is, the content of knowledge.
The basis of transcendental logic Kant puts “the idea of the science of pure knowledge, originating from reason and reason, knowledge, through which objects are thought quite a priori. Such science, which determines the origin, volume and objective value of such knowledge, should be called transcendental logic, because it deals exclusively with the laws of reason and reason, but only insofar as they relate a priori to subjects, as opposed to general logic, which deals with empirical knowledge, and pure knowledge of reason without ichiya “. Kant made an attempt to create a new logic that is significantly different from the old, formal logic. Transcendental logic is, in his conception, the logic of truth, the logic of the unity of content and form, the logic that explores the origin of knowledge.
Transcendental logic has the task of proving the unknowability of things in itself, and consequently, the unattainability of the objective are true.
To understand the subject, tasks, and value of the science of logic, it is necessary to solve the problem of the correctness and truth of thinking. To solve this question, we must turn to the Kantian theory of truth. The question of truth Kant puts in the introduction to the section “Transcendental Logic” “Critique of Pure Reason”. “What is truth?” – this is an old well-known question, which philosophers tried to confuse and lead them to a miserable logical circle, or to the recognition of their ignorance, and consequently, the futility of logic, – writes Kant. – Nominal definition of truth, according to which there is a correspondence of knowledge with its subject, here it is allowed and assumed to be in advance. ” However, such a definition does not mean that Kant accepted the theory of reflection, which defines truth as a correct reflection of objective reality, as the correspondence of knowledge to an object existing outside and independently of the knowing the subject. In “Logic”, Kant wrote: “Truth, they say, consists in the agreement of knowledge with the object. Consequently, by virtue of this one verbal explanation, my knowledge, in order to have a true meaning, must be in agreement with the object. But I can only compare the object with my knowledge due to the fact that I recognize the first one. Consequently, my knowledge has to confirm itself, and this is still far from sufficient for truth, because since the object is outside of me and the knowledge is in me, I can only judge whether my mind knowledge of the object with my knowledge of the object. ” In defending his views on the truth of thinking, Kant raises the following questions:
1) Is there a universal material truth criterion?
2) Is there a formal universal truth criterion?
On the first question, Kant gives a negative answer, on the second – a positive one. From his point of view, there can be no universal material criterion, for he considers the existence of such a criterion to be contradictory. Justifying this statement, Kant writes in The Critique of Pure Reason: “If truth consists in the agreement of knowledge with an object, then by means of it this object should be different from other subjects; in fact, knowledge contains a lie, if it does not agree with the subject to which it belongs, even though it contained in it something that could be relevant to other subjects. Meanwhile, the universal criterion of truth could only be such a criterion that would have value for all knowledge, without distinction their items.
But since in so When we divert from all content of knowledge (its relation to an object), while truth lies precisely in this content, it is clear from this that it is absolutely impossible and ridiculous to require an indication of the truth of this knowledge content and that a sufficient and at the same time universal criterion truth cannot be given. Since we have already named the content of knowledge as matter, we can express this thought as follows: it is impossible to demand the universal criterion of truth of knowledge on the part of its matter, since these requirements are contradictory. ”
Rejecting the universal material criterion of truth, Kant considered it possible the existence of a partial material criterion of truth, meaning by “material” and “matter” not real matter, as objective reality, but a state of consciousness. For Kant, this criterion consists in the correspondence of knowledge of “matter,” that is, in sensations and perceptions, and since the latter cannot be characterized by the property of universality, the “material” criterion can only be partial.
Rejecting objective truth, Kant tries to substantiate formal truth. On this occasion, Kant points out in “The Critique of Pure Reason”: “As for knowledge from its form alone (leaving all content aside), it is clear that logic, since it sets forth the general and necessary rules of reason, gives the truth criterion in these rules. That which contradicts them is a lie, since the rational mind contradicts the general rules of thinking, that is, to itself.
However, these criteria concern only the form of truth, that is, thinking in general, and therefore are not sufficient, although they are quite correct. In fact, knowledge quite consistent with a logical form, that is, not inconsistent with itself, can nevertheless contradict the subject.So, a purely logical criterion of truth, namely, the agreement of knowledge with the formal universal laws of reason and reason is, however, condito sine que non, that is truth, but beyond this the logic can not give any sign to open a misconception concerning not the form, but the content. ” Thus, Kant takes the next step after Aristotle. In his teaching, the subjective nature of truth is quite convincingly shown.
Therefore, a universal criterion of truth is impossible. Knowledge of the world is realized by the human mind based on a priori forms of reason. The process of comprehending truth should follow the path of studying the laws of reason.
So what is a priori knowledge? Already starting with Galeleo Galeleya, an experiment in science begins. The object of a scientific experiment is studied primarily on the basis of experience. Science studies the world of phenomena. The phenomenal world is again based on experience. But science has allowed the truth. The world is material, there is no God, and experience is preceded by a priori knowledge of knowledge before experience. That is, having this postulate, we can conduct any experiment (experiment) based on the fact that the world is a completely closed object. From all the above, it follows that science gives us extremely true information, but on condition that we accept the above postulate.
From this a very simple conclusion can be drawn: in science, pure experience can never be possible.
Let us further consider the structure of scientific knowledge, which will give us the opportunity to once again evaluate the scientific source of knowledge.
So, the basis, science, as already mentioned, is a priori knowledge.
Two postulates are also introduced here.
1) The world is material.
2) The world is closed, isolated.
Next, we observe the BODY of science, that is, the scientific facts themselves, arising from scientific experience.
And the tip of this iceberg is the SCIENTIFIC PICTURE OF THE WORLD.
As a source of knowledge, a scientific source is very interesting and quite truthful, but its foundation is very good at swinging the whole building of science.
Science is the sphere of human activity aimed at identifying, first of all, the natural in the existence and development of objects, phenomena, processes (or some of their parties). Modern science is a complex system.
A change of scientific pictures of the world occurs when phenomena are discovered that cannot be explained within the framework of existing scientific views (or when the phenomenon predicted by theory is not detected). Then there is a need for radical revision.
Knowledge of the law (that is, what nature does not object to) is, we recall, a prerequisite for purposeful human activity, an essential element of scientific prediction of the theory, in a radical change not only in the content of knowledge, but also in the style of scientific thinking. It is not easy to realize the failure of a fundamental theory, which until recently seemed quite reliable. But even more difficult. After all, if the former theory functioned as a theory, then it means that something really explained, i.e. contained elements of objective truth. And these elements must be revealed, otherwise the further development of the theory will be impossible.
Therefore, the change of the scientific picture of the world has two sides: the destruction of the previous scientific picture of the world, associated with it stereotypes of thinking (by detecting erroneous ideas) and on this basis – the formation of new knowledge, more accurately reflecting objective reality. This is where ideological dramatic collisions arise. After all, it is very difficult to part with the usual views … And when the need for this becomes quite obvious, there is a great temptation to simply reject the old concept as unsuccessful.
Therefore, the change of scientific pictures of the world, connected with the radical breaking of the previous ones and the formation of new ideas about certain areas of reality, is a natural stage in the development of scientific knowledge. As a result, there is a change in the scientific picture of the world, which is the result of generalization and synthesis of knowledge in various fields of science. This picture of the world (based on the philosophical picture of the world as its holistic and most common model) is formed under the predominant influence of the most developed (“leading”) science – the “leader.”
For a long time, this was physics (today separating this role with a number of other sciences), with the achievements of which mechanical is connected (Newton (two positions: 1-deism-religious-philosophical doctrine, which recognizes God as the universal mind, designed the expedient “machine” of nature and which gave it laws and movement, but rejects further intervention of God in the self-movement of nature and does not allow any other ways to cognize God, except reason; 2-theism-religious world view, proceeding from the understanding of God as an absolute personality, abiding it outside the world, freely creating it and acting in it., thermal (complete denial of God), quantum-relativistic (allowed to understand many properties of solids, explain the phenomena of superconductivity, ferromagnetism, superfluidity, is the basis of nuclear energy, know the laws of mechanical motion of bodies at speeds comparable to the speed of light (based on the theory of relativity)) picture of the world.Now this is a synergistic picture of the world (synergetikos-joint, consistently acting), which includes the field of scientific research, Spruce which identify common patterns of self-organization processes in open systems, sometimes leading to the appearance of these new structures. The latter can occur in systems that are in substantially non-equilibrium conditions (laser radiation, the emergence of spiral galaxies). Further, it may be a model of Lord Shiva – a picture of an indefinite world.
We have already touched on the idea of Thomas Aquintsky about the autonomy of reason. That is where rational thinking begins. This is where the roots of the rational source of knowledge go. After all, the principle of rationalism is expressed literally in one phrase: “I AM”. This is rational truth, the prerequisites of which became apparent at the very beginning of the emergence of Christianity. At that time, it was only a group of thinkers – the Gnostics, among whom was Basil, Theodotus and other minds, who were trying at that time to pull the mind out of the yoke of religion. But if we take the human mind apart from science, without any foundation, based on pure reason, then you can easily see all of utopianism, the bias of rationalism.
After all, not having a powerful basis of the human mind, denying everything, including science and religion, and recognizing only oneself is capable of being mistaken, creating utopias, sometimes, however, bordering on genius. If we take mathematics, then it is nothing but a brilliant idea, based only on the human mind. And sometimes it is impossible to understand what is genius and what is utopia. So small is the line between them. Listening to philosophers who adhere to rational thinking is very difficult to determine if it is a man of genius or just a person suffering from a mental disorder. A rationalist can come up with any theory, no matter how improbable it may be, and it will have a right to exist, as it is based on his conclusions, his mind and, accordingly, his personal representation, regardless of the rest of the world. Based on the above, we can assert that a rational source of knowledge provides only a subjective truth, rather far from true TRUTH.
So how to search for TRUTH? As mentioned above, many great minds tried to determine for themselves the criterion of truth. Kant, Aristotle defined the truth in different ways. But the truth is learned only in comparison and in-depth analysis of historically acquired knowledge. And having briefly analyzed this material, one can single out the truth for each of the trends considered in society. Our method of finding the truth is that we take science as the basis of analysis. Next, we reflect on the material from three ideological positions: materialistic, Christian and theosophical (although to some extent we also touch on the idea of rationalism). And in the end we make our conclusion.
Scientific truth is a scientific picture of the world, which, however, is constantly changing, depending on the development of science. It applies only to science and does not apply to any other worldview.
Christian truth was expressed by Christ 2,000 years ago and has not changed until now. Its basis is a religious source of knowledge. The unity of God. The primacy of God. God rules the world. Everything is from God. God is the creator and sole ruler.
Theosophical truth is a tangled model of the universe. Truth in the theosophical teaching. It is unshakable and not submitted for discussion. The existence of some gods (mahatma-semi people, semi-prophets) who rule the world.
Rational truth consists in the autonomy of the mind and does not give objectivity, since the property of the human mind to create utopias, to be mistaken.
I believe that scientific truth is the most acceptable for the concept of TRUTH, since it has scientific facts grounded under experiment. And naturally, based on this, I define my worldview as materialistic, but with some doubt about the roots (foundation) of scientific truth and materialistic worldview.
