What is rationalism? This is the most important direction in philosophy, headed by reason as the only source of reliable knowledge about the world. Rationalists deny the priority of experience. In their opinion, only theoretically can one comprehend all the necessary truths. How do representatives of rational philosophical school Did you justify your statements? This will be discussed in our article.
The concept of rationalism
Rationalism in philosophy is, first of all, a set of methods. According to the positions of some thinkers, only a reasonable, Gnostic way can achieve an understanding of the existing world structure. Rationalism is not a feature of any particular philosophical movement. It is rather a unique way of understanding reality, which can penetrate many scientific fields.
The essence of rationalism is simple and uniform, but may vary depending on the interpretation of certain thinkers. For example, some philosophers hold moderate views on the role of reason in knowledge. Intellect, in their opinion, is the main, but the only means of comprehending the truth. However, there are also radical concepts. In this case, reason is recognized as the only possible source of knowledge.
Socratics
Before beginning to understand the world, a person must know himself. This statement is considered one of the main ones in the philosophy of Socrates, the famous ancient Greek thinker. What does Socrates have to do with rationalism? In fact, it is he who is the founder of the philosophical direction in question. Socrates saw the only way to understand man and the world in rational thinking.
The ancient Greeks believed that a person consists of a soul and a body. The soul, in turn, has two states: rational and irrational. The irrational part consists of desires and emotions - base human qualities. The rational part of the soul is responsible for perceiving the world.
Socrates considered it his task to purify the irrational part of the soul and unite it with the rational. The philosopher's idea was to overcome spiritual discord. First you should understand yourself, then the world. But how can this be done? Socrates had his own special method: leading questions. This method is most clearly depicted in Plato's Republic. Socrates, as the main character of the work, conducts conversations with the sophists, leading them to the necessary conclusions by identifying problems and using leading questions.
Philosophical rationalism of the Enlightenment
The Enlightenment is one of the most amazing and beautiful eras in human history. Faith in progress and knowledge was the main driving force of the ideological and worldview movement implemented by French enlighteners of the 17th-18th centuries.
A feature of rationalism during the presented era was the strengthening of criticism of religious ideologies. More and more thinkers began to elevate reason and recognize the insignificance of faith. At the same time, questions of science and philosophy were not the only ones in those days. Considerable attention was paid to sociocultural problems. This, in turn, prepared the way for socialist ideas.
Teaching people to use the capabilities of their minds was precisely this task that was considered a priority for the philosophers of the Enlightenment. The question of what rationalism is was answered by many minds of that time. These are Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Montesquieu and many others.
Descartes' theory of rationalism
Starting from the foundations left by Socrates, thinkers of the 17th-18th centuries consolidated the initial attitude: “Have the courage to use your reason.” This attitude became the impetus for the formation of his ideas by Rene Descartes, a French mathematician and philosopher of the first half of the 17th century.
Descartes believed that all knowledge must be tested by the natural “light of reason.” Nothing can be taken for granted. Any hypothesis must be subjected to careful mental analysis. It is generally accepted that it was the French enlighteners who prepared the ground for the ideas of rationalism.
Cogito ergo sum
“I think, therefore I exist.” This famous judgment became Descartes' calling card. It most accurately reflects the basic principle of rationalism: the intelligible prevails over the sensible. At the center of Descartes' views is a person endowed with the ability to think. However, self-awareness does not yet have autonomy. A philosopher who lived in the 17th century simply cannot abandon the theological concept of the existence of the world. Simply put, Descartes does not deny God: in his opinion, God is a powerful mind that has put the light of reason into man. Self-consciousness is open to God, and it is also the source of truth. Here the philosopher forms a vicious circle - a kind of metaphysical infinity. Every existence, according to Descartes, is a source of self-consciousness. In turn, the ability to know oneself is provided by God.
Thinking substance
At the origins of Descartes' philosophy is man. According to the views of the thinker, a person is a “thinking thing.” It is one specific person who can come to the truth. The philosopher did not believe in the power of social knowledge, since the totality of different minds, in his opinion, cannot be the source of rational progress.
Descartes' man is a thing that doubts, denies, knows, loves, feels and hates. The abundance of all these qualities contributes to a smart start. Moreover the most important quality the thinker considers doubt. It is precisely this that calls for a rational beginning, a search for truth.
The harmonious combination of the irrational and rational also plays a significant role in cognition. However, before you trust your senses, you need to explore creative possibilities own intelligence.
Descartes' dualism
It is impossible to exhaustively answer the question of what Descartes’ rationalism is without touching on the problem of dualism. According to the provisions of the famous thinker, two independent substances combine and interact in man: matter and spirit. Matter is a body consisting of many corpuscles - atomic particles. Descartes, unlike the atomists, considers particles to be infinitely divisible, completely filling space. The soul rests in matter, which is also spirit and mind. Descartes called the spirit a thinking substance - Cogito.
The world owes its origins precisely to corpuscles - particles in endless vortex motion. According to Descartes, emptiness does not exist, and therefore corpuscles completely fill space. The soul also consists of particles, but much smaller and more complex. From all this we can conclude about the prevailing materialism in the views of Descartes.
Thus, René Descartes greatly complicated the concept of rationalism in philosophy. This is not just a priority of knowledge, but a voluminous structure complicated by a theological element. In addition, the philosopher showed the possibilities of his methodology in practice - using the example of physics, mathematics, cosmogony and other exact sciences.
Spinoza's rationalism
Benedict Spinoza became a follower of Descartes' philosophy. His concepts are distinguished by a much more harmonious, logical and systematic presentation. Spinoza attempted to answer many of the questions raised by Descartes. For example, he classified the question about God as a philosophical one. “God exists, but only within the framework of philosophy” - this is precisely the statement that caused three centuries ago aggressive reaction from the side of the church.
Spinoza's philosophy is presented logically, but this does not make it generally understandable. Many of Benedict's contemporaries recognized that his rationalism was difficult to analyze. Goethe even admitted that he could not understand what Spinoza wanted to convey. There is only one scientist who is truly interested in the concepts of the famous Enlightenment thinker. This man was Albert Einstein.
And yet, what is so mysterious and incomprehensible contained in Spinoza’s works? To answer this question, one should open the main work of the scientist - the treatise "Ethics". The core of the thinker's philosophical system is the concept of material substance. This category deserves some attention.
Spinoza's substance
What is rationalism as understood by Benedict Spinoza? The answer to this question lies in the doctrine of material substance. Unlike Descartes, Spinoza recognized only a single substance - incapable of creation, change or destruction. Substance is eternal and infinite. She is God. Spinoza's God is no different from nature: he is incapable of setting goals and does not have free will. At the same time, substance, which is also God, has a number of features - unchangeable attributes. Spinoza talks about two main ones: thinking and extension. These categories can be known. Moreover, thinking is nothing more than the main component of rationalism. Spinoza considers any manifestation of nature to be causally determined. Human behavior is also subject to certain reasons.
The philosopher distinguishes three types of knowledge: sensory, rational and intuitive. Feelings constitute the lowest category in the system of rationalism. This includes emotions and simple needs. Reason is the main category. With its help, one can cognize the endless modes of rest and movement, extension and thinking. Intuition is considered the highest type of knowledge. This is an almost religious category that is not accessible to all people.
Thus, the entire basis of Spinoza's rationalism is based on the concept of substance. This concept is dialectical and therefore difficult to understand.
Kant's rationalism
In German philosophy, the concept in question acquired a specific character. Immanuel Kant contributed greatly to this. Starting as a thinker who adhered to traditional views, Kant was able to break out of the usual framework of thinking and give a completely different meaning to many philosophical categories, including rationalism.
The category under consideration acquired a new meaning from the moment it was combined with the concept of empiricism. As a result, transcendental idealism was formed - one of the most important and controversial concepts in world philosophy. Kant argued with the rationalists. He believed that pure reason must pass through itself. Only in this case will he receive an incentive to develop. According to the German philosopher, you need to know God, freedom, the immortality of the soul and other complex concepts. Of course, there will be no result here. However, the very fact of knowing such unusual categories indicates the development of the mind.
Kant criticized the rationalists for neglecting experiments, and the empiricists for their reluctance to use reason. The famous German philosopher made a significant contribution to the general development of philosophy: he was the first to try to “reconcile” two opposing schools, to find some kind of compromise.
Rationalism in the works of Leibniz
Empiricists argued that there is nothing in the mind that did not previously exist in the senses. The Saxon philosopher Gottfried Leibniz modifies this position: in his opinion, there is nothing in the mind that was not previously in the feeling, with the exception of the mind itself. According to Leibniz, the soul is generated by itself. Intelligence and cognitive activity are categories that precede experience.
There are only two types of truths: truth of fact and truth of reason. The fact is the opposite of logically meaningful, verified categories. The philosopher contrasts the truth of reason with logically unthinkable concepts. The body of truth is based on the principles of identity, exclusion of the third element and absence of contradiction.
Popper's rationalism
Karl Popper, an Austrian philosopher of the 20th century, became one of the last thinkers who tried to comprehend the problem of rationalism. His entire position can be characterized by his own quote: “I may be wrong, and you may be right; with an effort, perhaps we will get closer to the truth.”
Popper's critical rationalism is an attempt to separate scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge. To do this, the Austrian scientist introduced the principle of falsificationism, according to which a theory is considered valid only if it can be proven or disproved through experiment. Today, Popper's concept is applied in many fields.
From the article you will learn:
Greetings to all of you, our dear visitors, readers and guests. We continue to talk about cryptocurrencies and today the topic of our article will be Ripple’s pros and cons in comparison with Ethereum.
I think you know for sure that the correction of cryptocurrency rates occurred, albeit with a certain delay. If we take into account the period from January 7 to the beginning of December, then in just over a month, cryptocurrency market capitalization decreased by almost 67%. Meanwhile, a slight increase followed. But even despite such a decline, cryptocurrencies are still ahead of classical assets, since since 2017 their capitalization has grown over 3000% - this is a phenomenal amount.
Best broker
ETHER, RIPPLE CAME OUT OF THE SHADOW
The main contribution to the development of the cryptocurrency market in 2017 was made by these two large cryptocurrencies, which emerged from the shadow of Bitcoin and attracted the attention of many investors!
Speaking in percentage terms, Ethereum grew by 9,400% in 2017, and Ripple added a record 35,000%. Although Bitcoin was called the most successful cryptocurrency in 2017, we can safely say that this year was left to Ripple, as well as Ether.
The fundamental success of these cryptocurrencies lies in the blockchain system. Blockchain is a ledger that underlies cryptocurrencies, within which various transactions for a specific currency are recorded. It is generally accepted that blockchain can be perfectly used in various fields ah our activities.
With its help, it will be possible to significantly increase the speed of transactions. In addition, the influence of intermediaries is also leveled, and commission costs will be seriously reduced! In general, everyone understands that the banking sector is far from ideal, but blockchain can correct this situation.
ETHER. WHY IS HE SO SPECIAL?
It’s worth saying here that it is thanks to the blockchain that we see large number projects developing on the basis of this system. This is the first major blockchain that could be freely used not only for making payments.
Roughly speaking, with its help, large businesses received a unique opportunity to limit themselves to innovation not only in the field of translations, but also to solve issues in such industries as, for example, logistics, as well as management! It is not surprising that in 2017 an alliance of 200 companies was created that began testing the Ethereum blockchain in various areas. In fact, there is no blockchain that is better suited for various areas than the Ethereum blockchain.
WATCH MY VIDEO SURVEILLANCE
Main advantages Ethereum is the fact that so-called smart contracts operate within its framework. Smart contracts help facilitate, confirm, and also monitor the objectivity of the conclusion and compliance with any contract. Their main goal is to replace the usual paper contracts, which have long become ineffective, thereby giving businesses innovation. Smart contracts can really provide security, since the possibility of possible falsification is eliminated due to their decentralization!
RIPPLE PROS AND CONS. WHY DOES HE GET ATTENTION?
Unlike Ethereum, Ripple focuses on to a greater extent for large-scale cooperation with financial organizations. Distinctive feature The Ripple blockchain is an incredible speed of transactions, as well as incredibly low commissions.
Some organizations have studied the transaction speed of certain cryptocurrencies. So, it was noted that Ripple is capable of conducting about 1,500 transactions per second, ranking first among cryptocurrencies. Meanwhile, VISA currently carries out over 20,000 transactions. However, Ripple with its blockchain is a scalable structure. Accordingly, Ripple will be able to conduct a huge number of transactions per second. In addition, the commission for each individual transaction is about one cent, which makes the Ripple blockchain very attractive.
On at the moment, Ripple is already collaborating with several large companies. As a result of the conglomerate, companies say they are now able to quickly process cross-border transfers that previously took days but carried significant commission costs. Now everything happens instantly, with minimal costs.
THE MOST GLOBAL RISKS OF RIPPLE WITH ETHEREUM
Without a doubt, these are large, promising cryptocurrencies, however, there is a risk everywhere, as here too! Despite the fact that there are enough companies that want to try the blockchains of these two cryptocurrencies, there are certain disadvantages that can simply put an end to all the bright prospects.
BLOCKCHAIN IS NOT USED ON A LARGE BASIS IN DIFFERENT AREAS
Here you must understand that a very important fact is that despite all the promise of these cryptocurrencies, everything will be determined by how quickly a business can find a real rational use of the blockchain to solve pressing problems.
It should be clearly understood that many people say that blockchain is incredibly promising, it can be used in many areas. For example, here. Meanwhile, we see that blockchain technology is already about 10 years old, but it is not used on a large scale anywhere. Yes, there are many companies that are testing it, but there is no real large-scale application yet!
No one can predict the timing of the actual implementation and use of blockchain. The Ripple and Ethereum blockchains have not yet undergone real testing; at the moment, the use of the blockchain of these cryptocurrencies is limited to some small demo projects - nothing more! In addition, you need to understand that at the moment, cooperation between blockchain and other systems in different industries is not always possible.
That is, it is meant that in some systems it will simply not be possible to simply introduce blockchain and painlessly. Roughly speaking, many systems will simply have to be designed from scratch. As you understand, this will result in colossal time and also monetary costs. It is unlikely that there will be investors who will be willing to invest exorbitant amounts of money in blockchain technology, which has not yet proven itself in practice.
Roughly speaking, if in the near future a business does not find a real use for the blockchain, then the rates of Ripple and Ethereum may fall very much!
EVERYONE IS CAPABLE OF RELEASEING THEIR CRYPT
Another important reason to stress is that anyone can put their cryptocurrency into circulation. As practice shows, today this is not a problem. In just a year, about 600 different cryptocurrencies were created, many of them have their own blockchain!
All that is needed to create a blockchain with the corresponding cryptocurrency linked to it is capital, time, and a development team. This already means that many blockchains can absorb the advantages of many cryptocurrencies, eliminating their shortcomings.
What I mean is that there is no guarantee that tomorrow there won't be a blockchain that will eclipse the pros and cons of Ripple and Ethereum. As a result, they will become completely useless to anyone. Considering the fact that this area is actively developing and progressing, the possibility of such a scenario cannot be ruled out. Naturally, this kind of situation will not point in favor of Ethereum and Ripple.
CONCLUSIONS
Yes, without a doubt, the Ripple and Ethereum blockchains are very promising, yes, they are of increased interest from many companies. However, many people really have fear and lack of understanding of the real use of blockchain technology in everyday life. I'm not saying that this system has no future. On the contrary, her future is very bright, but the timing is still unclear.
There are 4 answers (corresponding different types intuition):1. Exercise overview
The founders of the new philosophy in the 17th century - Descartes in France and Bacon in England - set the main task to develop the correct methodology of the sciences. This question very quickly acquired the character of a question about the source or origin of knowledge (or about the “factors” of knowledge) and only, starting with Kant, was again transferred to its main methodological significance.
The sciences that served as models for methodological research were natural science and mathematics. In the practice of scientific knowledge, the development of natural science was closely connected with the development of mathematics; in the person of Galileo (beginning of the 17th century) and even earlier in the person of the great forerunners new science Nick. Cusa (XV century) and Leonardo da Vinci (late XV and early XVI centuries). The new natural science arose as mathematical natural science, that is, as the decomposition of experimental data into quantitative elements, the construction of mathematical laws of phenomena and their experimental verification. Thus, in the practice of science, experimental observation and abstract logic. analysis found their fruitful combination, and the methodology of natural science found its exact expression in the works of the natural scientist Galileo. In philosophy, however, methodological problems led for as long as 2 centuries to a dispute between two schools, one of which, developing mainly on the continent (France, Holland, Germany), took pure mathematics as a model and considered true only knowledge similar to mathematics, i.e. e. based on logical analysis (rationalism), and the other, developing in England, took experimental natural science as a model and considered experimental observation to be the only basis or source of knowledge.
1. Sensualism
We receive our knowledge through the external senses: eyes, ears, smell, touch. There is some truth here. This point of view is called sensationalism /sensus – sensation/. But there are downsides. IN Ancient Greece people have noticed that sometimes the external senses deceive. There are colorblind people who confuse colors. If you put a stick in water, your eyes say that the stick is refracted. The distance gets smaller. In old age, hearing becomes dull. Since they sometimes let us down, it means that we cannot trust them at all, although in practice we all believe. Basic formula of sensationalism: “There is nothing in the intellect that does not first pass through the senses.” You cannot be a 100% skeptic.
Most people adhere to sensationalism. And absolutely everything in practical life sensualists. The rationalists' point of view is more complex. But the problem here is how the mind works. For example, city dwellers in nature. They have a lot of emotions, but their minds are silent. The element of true knowledge is the concept. But how do concepts appear? By discarding secondary features. But no one does this in practice. [I: experientialism: the source of knowledge is public and personal experience.]
2. Empiricism
Empiricism, having its roots in English. medieval thought (W. Ockham in the 12th century, Franciscan monk Roger Bacon in the 14th century), received its first systematic justification from Francis Bacon, at the beginning of the 17th century. (English thinker and statesman the era of Elizabeth and James I, a contemporary of Shakespeare). Bacon is dissatisfied with all the knowledge that existed in his time. The purpose of knowledge is not a fruitless, abstract game of the mind, but practical benefits for life, mastery of the forces of nature. But this mastery is possible only by “serving” nature, that is, by carefully studying its phenomena. The only “doors” to knowledge are experimental observation. We must clear our thought of all preconceived notions (which Bacon calls "idols"); become a “pure mirror” of nature and write down judgments as if “dictated by the voice of nature.” Bacon lays down rules for the collection, observation and classification of natural phenomena (the famous theory of scientific induction or experiment) and demands that we ascend from facts to generalizations by a slow and consistent path of ever-widening generalizations.
Locke gives a systematic theory of empiricism. Locke rebels against the teaching of Descartes and his followers about “innate” ideas and truths. There are no such innate ideas and truths, which is proven by the difference of opinions, the difference of beliefs different nations, the possibility of delusions, etc. Our mind at birth is a “white sheet of paper,” a “blank slate” (tabula rasa), on which experience first writes its letters. All our ideas, including higher concepts, are generalizations from experience. We have “external” experience – sensory sensations, and “internal” – psychological introspection. Both experiences give us " simple ideas", from the combinations of which all complex ideas are formed. However, in assessing the cognitive significance of experience, Locke deviates from pure empiricism. He recognizes, firstly, the significance of some ideas that cannot be verified by experience (for example, the idea of substance), although he believes them “vague.” Then he proves that the only exact knowledge is the knowledge of purely logical relations between ideas (similarity, difference and mathematical relations), relations that we perceive through direct contemplation of the general nature of the idea, knowledge achieved through the experimental observation of individual ones. phenomena - knowledge of real relations of coexistence and sequence - have a strict basis only for a single case, but as generalizations, or general judgments expressing the laws of nature, it is not such knowledge, but has only probable significance; therefore, Locke does not particularly highly value experimental natural science; .
The further history of empiricism in the person of the systems of Berkeley and Hume is the history of an increasingly strict and straightforward implementation of the requirements of empiricism and, at the same time, the understanding that the satisfaction of these requirements leads to the denial of much, and in Hume - all that is most essential in our knowledge, i.e. information empiricism to skepticism.
The main representatives of empiricism are Francis Bacon, Locke, Berkeley. Hume.
3. Rationalism
RATIONALISM (lat. rationalis - reasonable, ratio - reason). A philosophical movement based on the belief that reason [here: thinking ability in general] is the only source of knowledge and criterion of its truth. R. recognizes reason as the basis not only of cognition, but also of human behavior. According to the rationalistic theory of knowledge, universality and necessity - the logical signs of reliable knowledge - cannot be derived from experience and its generalizations; they can be drawn only from the mind itself, or from concepts inherent in the mind from birth (Descartes' theory of innate ideas), or from concepts that exist only in the form of inclinations, predispositions of the mind.
Philosophers began to say that the true source of our knowledge is the mind. What is the mind? This is what allows us to listen, speak, write, read. Rationalists-gnoseologists say that the main thing is the concept. A philosopher is always a rationalist. The concept is the element of true knowledge. The whole strength of rationalism lies in the criticism of sensationalism. Where do people get their concepts from?
Some say: when comparing objects, general signs are taken, compiled, and a conclusion is drawn. Kitchen table, desk, coffee table – the general characteristics of the concept “table” are selected. But no one is doing this. The problem remains unresolved - the origin general concepts. Rationalism is a philosophical movement in knowledge, according to which universality and necessity - the logical signs of reliable knowledge - cannot be derived from experience and its generalizations; they can be drawn only from the mind itself, or from concepts inherent in the mind from birth (Descartes' theory of innate ideas), or from concepts that exist only in the form of inclinations, predispositions of the mind. Experience has a certain stimulating effect on their appearance, but the character of unconditional universality and unconditional necessity is imparted to them by considerations of the mind or a priori forms that precede experience and are supposedly independent of it. In this sense, rationalism is the opposite of empiricism. Rationalism arose as an attempt to explain logic. features of the truths of mathematics and mathematics. natural sciences. Its representatives in the 17th century were Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, and in the 18th century. – Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel.
Rationalism has many-sided manifestations in various fields of knowledge. In psychology, he brings intellectual mental functions to the forefront, reducing, for example, will to reason (Spinoza); in ethics - rac. motives and principles of character. activities [Socrates]; in aesthetics – the rational (intellectual) nature of creativity. In all these cases, R. means faith in reason, in the evidence of reasonable discretion, in the power of evidence. In this sense, R. opposes irrationalism. According to Descartes, a person in his actions is always subordinate to his reason - Descartes developed the Socratic-Platonic line. Gödel's incompleteness theorem indicates the limitations of rationalism???
Arguments in favor of rationalism - if we accept the point of view of the sensualists, it turns out that there is no difference between man and beast; animals have even more developed these feelings. Man has speech and reason. This means that reason is the source of knowledge. But how can reason give knowledge? The eyes see, but the mind does not see. Nobody knows how the mind works. Some leading rationalists went so far as to make paradoxical statements: Plato – “reason directly touches speculative objects (ideas) and makes copies of them / icons /.” For example, the concept of a table. There is such an idea. This theory is the basis for all rationalists. There is another more correct one: Aristotle - “there are ideas, but they are in the objects themselves. Reason compares objects, common features are taken, put together, and a conclusion is drawn.” But no one does this in practice. (PRESENTATION is the totality of all features. Concept is only essential features.)
All rationalists argue that the element of true knowledge is the concept; it only needs to be precisely defined. This is what all mental work consists of. Material for the concept, from the point of view. rationalists, these are true concepts inherent in the mind, just as buds are inherent in a branch and come out of it. At the Second Ecumenical Council, the concept of the Trinity was developed from the limited exact information of the Holy Scriptures. A person must introduce and define concepts with his own mind. But how did concepts get into the mind? Plato: the soul, before connecting with the body, was in the spiritual world, where ideas are located. The soul has seen enough ideas and remembered them. It's a mythical explanation, but an explanation nonetheless. And these concepts/ideas/ are then renewed. Knowledge is memory. This is how the theory of innate ideas appeared /Kant, Hegel, Descartes/. When a person assimilates absolute concepts, he becomes deified, that is, he becomes one with God. That's what they think. Gnostics. Assimilation itself becomes an end in itself.
The main representatives of rationalism are Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz.
Descartes discovers a general criterion of truth: all clear and distinct ideas are true, and from them follow the necessary connections between them; false judgments are the result of arbitrary combinations of ideas - combinations that are possible only when ideas are vague. But all sensory images, all data of perception are vague, they are often erroneous and, in any case, the opposite of them is conceivable, therefore, they are unreliable. –On the contrary, mathematics, which is strictly logical, serves as an example of reliable knowledge. by moving from self-evident truths (axioms) to conclusions from them; All knowledge is reliable insofar as it is in this sense likened to mathematics. The highest basis of knowledge are self-evident truths, which are the logical understanding of connections, clear, simple ideas. These ideas themselves, since they are not borrowed from experience, are obviously innate in our mind; such, for example, is the idea of God, the basic ideas of logic and the highest rational concepts of scientific knowledge in general.
The conviction of rationalism that purely logical analysis, without any participation of experimental observation, can give a complete explanation of all relations of being, in a logical sense is based on the conviction that all real connections and relationships are decomposable into logical relations. By real connections and relationships are meant such as, for example, the relationship between cause and effect, or the pattern of coexistence of two phenomena, etc.; log. relations ultimately come down to relations of foundation and effect, by virtue of which B logically necessarily follows from A. Descartes’ successor Spinoza expressed this conviction in the statement that “the order and connection of things are the same as the order and connection of ideas,” and in that , which he uses as equivalent concepts causa (reason) and ratio (ground). For Spinoza, “all things follow from the nature of God (who is thought of as the highest basis of being) just as the equality of its angles to two right angles follows from the nature of a triangle.” Thus, in the world there is no creativity, development, time change, everything in the world becomes logically necessary and logical. follows from the first cause. Following the program outlined by Descartes, Spinoza writes his phil. a system of “geometric order”, that is, as a textbook of geometry, in the form of axioms, definitions and theorems; and - what is more important - all of existence becomes in his image some kind of embodied logic.
The last great rationalist, Leibniz, softens rationalism by distinguishing between 2 types of truths: “eternal” truths, truths of reason (i.e. purely logical), like mathematical ones, and “truths of fact”, based on the statement of facts and not logically deducible; the first truths are based on logic. the law of identity, the latter based on the “law of sufficient reason” formulated by Leibniz (according to Leibniz’s metaphysics – on teleological causality). But in principle, Leibniz also retains this rationalistic conviction, for he claims that “the truth of a fact is logically unprovable (that is, cannot be deduced from “eternal truths”) only for the imperfect human mind, but for the perfect mind of God, all truths have a purely logical basis. ".
Since the reform of the methodology of knowledge carried out by Kant, rationalism in this classical form ceases to exist. However, even in post-Kantian philosophy, rationalism is revived in a unique form in the absolute idealism of Hegel, as well as in modern school logical idealism (“Marburg school”). In this the latest form it is usually called “panlogism”: in a certain sense, it is even more radical than the old rationalism, for it is based on the conviction that all existence is reducible to “ideas” and ideal relations. For Hegel, the whole world develops as a logical system of ideas, through the formation of contradictions and their resolution in higher concepts, and “reason,” “idea,” “concept” become a living force, the manifestation of which is the entire world existence.
4. Mysticism
The source of true knowledge is a certain inner feeling. There is nothing to say about it, but it is there. Mystical way of knowing (from the Greek mustikoV - mystery). Mystics say: “I have knowledge of God.” They feel: "God has descended on me." Feeling plays a colossal role in life. Success or failure depends on your mood. They say that there are special feelings that connect us with God, but they cannot explain. Mystics say: God descends on the soul through feeling. Christians would say so too. Asceticism is physical. exercises, bows, they help a person bring the soul to an exalted state.
2. Criticism of empiricism and rationalism
1. The essence of the disagreement
The main point of disagreement is that empiricism deduces a universal and necessary character knowledge not from the mind itself, but from experience. Some empiricists (for example, Hobbes, Hume), under the influence of rationalism, came to the conclusion that experience is not capable of imparting necessary and universal meaning to knowledge. The limitations of empiricism consist in the metaphysical exaggeration of the role of sensory knowledge and experience and in the underestimation of the role of scientific abstractions and theories in knowledge, in the denial of the active role and relative independence of thinking.
The history of empiricism itself provides enough material for its criticism. Having begun with the assertion that experience is the only source of knowledge, empiricism, represented by Hume, reaches skepticism, i.e., to the conclusion that experience in the strict sense does not provide any knowledge, but only raw material for knowledge in the form of individual impressions. This development of empiricism, since it is not accidental, but necessary, already contains a refutation of empiricism: if, based on empiricism, one has to deny all knowledge, then it is obviously not the knowledge itself that is to blame, but empiricism, which is a bad or insufficient theory knowledge. The history of empiricism after Hume, in the 19th century, does not contradict this conclusion. If J.-St. Mill tried to write a "System of Logic" in the spirit of empiricism, but he achieved this partly due to the understatement of his thoughts - he is closer to Locke than to Hume - and partly by including a significant dose of skepticism in his empiricism. The later forms of empiricism - the “empirio-criticism” of Avenarius, and the predominantly American theory of “pragmatism” (the teachings of James and others, according to which the criterion of truth is the practical usefulness or fruitfulness of the corresponding concepts) are thoroughly imbued with skepticism. They deny the objective value of general knowledge, and believe that everything in knowledge, except for individual facts, has a purely relative and auxiliary meaning of a more or less economical, simple and convenient abbreviated description of the facts.
Kant, in his theory of knowledge, showed the falsity and ambiguity of the empirical statement that experience is the only source of knowledge. All our knowledge, says Kant, begins with experience, but is not drawn from experience, that is, it is not based on experience. By experimental knowledge in the narrow sense we must understand only that knowledge, the meaning of which entirely depends on a single observation; but this knowledge is limited to the statement of a single fact. In all other knowledge, concepts and judgments participate, logically not dependent on any experience, although psychologically they use experience as a psychological tool for awakening thoughts. This indication eliminates the dispute about innate concepts. Psychologically, it is absolutely true that we have no innate ideas or judgments, and that we learn everything by learning through experience. But there are elements of knowledge that, without being innate, are “a priori”, i.e. logically independent of experience.
2. All knowledge goes beyond experience
Analysis of knowledge shows that every judgment, starting with the one that seems to be a simple statement of a fact, contains, in addition to purely experimental material, also its subordination or processing in concepts or logical relations completely independent of it, i.e. is the logical interpretation of experience in the sense of concepts. Even such a judgment as: “this is red” (seemingly a purely experimental statement) contains the consideration of the identity of this object with all other red objects, its difference in color from other objects and, at the same time, belonging in quality to the color system (in contrast to e.g., from sounds, etc.) - all a series of thoughts not given in direct sensation. In essence, any knowledge, being the subordination of individual material to the form of a concept, thereby already goes beyond the limits of experience.
The failure of empiricism does not yet prove rationalism. True, all knowledge is the subordination of the material of knowledge to a logical system of concepts, but this logical system only in some areas of knowledge exhausts and states the very subject of knowledge (in the purely ideal area - and mathematics and logic, where from a logical point of view, experience does not play any role. ) In any real knowledge, the system of concepts and logical relations is only a form in which superlogical content is expressed, i.e. inexhaustible to the end in logical relations. Thus, temporal relations, including causality, are never completely reducible to the logical relation of foundation and effect, because all logical relations are timeless, i.e. are valid once and for all, regardless of the temporal change of phenomena.
The dispute between empiricism and rationalism is logically reduced, ultimately, to a purely ontological question. Empiricism wants to understand true existence only as a set of individual phenomena and events occurring in time. Rationalism wants to think of being as logic. a system of ideas, that is, as the timeless existence of general contents. In reality, neither one nor the other system can embrace being as a whole and be implemented consistently as a universal system. Temporary, that is, the existence of individual phenomena occurring in time cannot be self-sufficient, since time itself is a unity and is unthinkable other than continuous. In addition, time is conceivable only as part of a supertemporal unity, otherwise it could not exist (for the past no longer exists, the future does not yet exist, and the present is only an ideal line between the past and the future). Temporal being is conceivable only in connection with timeless unity, and therefore our concepts and logical relations have objective ontological significance.
On the other hand, abstract-timeless being forms only the abstract side of integrally concrete being - a side that, however, is thinkable separately from its temporal filling, and as such forms the content of the ideal sciences (logic and mathematics), but which logically presupposes concrete supertemporal unity of consciousness and being. In no way can time, temporary existence and the living change of phenomena be derived from the purely logical or reduced to it. Absolute being is neither a single, purely irrational phenomenon of life, nor a bare idea, but is an inextricable unity of life and idea.
3. Once again about the criteria of truth
The rationalist tradition considered the main features of truth to be universality and the necessity of knowledge. True knowledge does not relate to individual objects, but to classes of objects. The properties of objects recorded in true knowledge manifest themselves necessarily under certain conditions. Rightly asserting that any reasoning begins with certain premises of an axiomatic nature, rationalists considered evidence as a criterion for the truth of these premises. What was recognized as true was that which was impossible to doubt, that which seemed obviously true. The obvious is comprehended, according to rationalists, through intellectual intuition. This position is found, in particular, in R. Descartes. The development of the rationalistic tendency was expressed in the search for internal criteria for the truth of knowledge (logical consistency, self-consistency of knowledge).
The sensationalist tradition names sensations as a criterion of truth. At the same time, unlike materialistic, idealistic sensationalism, based on the correspondence of knowledge (concept) to sensations, does not draw a conclusion about the correspondence of knowledge to reality. In the empirical tradition, experience plays the role of criterion of truth. The very concept of experience cannot be reduced to sensations. In addition to sensations, experience may include all internal experiences and states of consciousness, as well as external experience, for example, the pragmatic experience of the subject or scientific observation and experiment.
T.n. dialectical materialism puts practice (such a lady) in place of the main criterion. It is she who acts as a common link between subject and object and connects them into a system. Thus, diamat “overcomes” the opposition between the subject and object of cognition. Published on the website.
Sensualism and rationalism are two extremes in assessing the relationship between sensory and rational reflection in the process of cognition.
Sensualism (from Latin sensu - feeling) (D. Locke, Condillac, etc.) absolutizes the role of sensory reflection, defending the thesis: there is nothing in the mind that is not in the feelings.
Strength sensationalism about emphasizing the role of sensory cognition as the most important source of primary information.
Weak - in the overvaluation of sensory knowledge, in an attempt to reduce the entire process of cognition to various combinations of sensory data, to belittle and negate the role of thinking.
As a result, sensationalism has always given in to the question of the nature of general concepts, to mathematical truths, etc.
Sensationalism(French sensualisme, from Latin sensus - perception, feeling, sensation), a direction in the theory of knowledge, according to which sensuality is the main form of knowledge. In contrast to rationalism, it seeks to derive the entire content of knowledge from the activity of the senses.
Prominent representatives of materialistic S. in the 17th century. were P. Gassendi, T. Hobbes and J. Locke. The latter, based on the fundamental formulas of S., made an attempt to derive from sensory experience the entire content of human consciousness, although he admitted that the mind is inherent in spontaneous power, independent of experience.
The weaknesses of sensationalism were actively used by rationalism (from the Latin ratio - reason) (R. Descartes, B. Spinoza, Leibniz), which in turn belittled the role of sensory knowledge and assigned a decisive place to reason, divorced from sensory reflection. If sensationalism, in its one-sidedness, stops knowledge halfway, on purely experimental data, then rationalism tears reason away from its nutritious soil, from empirical facts, and thereby deprives knowledge of the basis on which it can only be built. successful work cognizing the world of the mind.
Thus, only in the unity of sensory reflection and rational knowledge, empirical and theoretical knowledge is the real path to comprehending the truth. And we will now turn precisely to the ultimate goal of knowledge - to the problem of truth.
Rationalism(French rationalisme, from Latin rationalis - reasonable, ratio - reason), a philosophical direction that recognizes reason as the basis of human cognition and behavior. R. opposes both fideism and irrationalism, and sensationalism (empiricism). The term "R." used to designate and characterize philosophical concepts since the 19th century. Historically, the rationalist tradition dates back to ancient Greek philosophy: for example, Parmenides, who distinguished between knowledge “according to truth” (obtained through reason) and knowledge “according to opinion” (achieved as a result of sensory perception), saw in reason the criterion of truth.
Justifying the unconditional reliability of scientific principles and provisions of mathematics and natural science, R. tried to solve the question: how knowledge acquired in the process of human cognitive activity acquires an objective, universal and necessary character. In contrast to sensationalism, R. argued that scientific knowledge, which has these logical properties, is achievable through reason, which is its source and at the same time the criterion of truth. Turning to reason as the only source of scientific knowledge led R. to the idealistic conclusion about the existence of innate ideas (Descartes) or predispositions and inclinations of thinking independent of sensuality (Leibniz). R.'s downplaying of the role of sensory perception, in the form of which a person's connection with the outside world is realized, entailed a separation of thinking from the object of knowledge.
The limitations and one-sidedness of R. were overcome by Marxism. Resolution of the contradiction between empiricism and R. became possible on fundamentally new foundations developed in the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism. The main condition for solving this problem was the analysis of the process of cognition in organic connection with practical activities to transform reality. “From living contemplation to abstract thinking and from it to practice - this is the dialectical path of cognition of truth, cognition of objective reality.”
81. Dialectics of the sensual and rational, empirical and theoretical in knowledge.
Sensory knowledge is knowledge in the form of sensations and perceptions of the properties of things directly given to the senses. The initial sensory image in cognitive activity is sensation - the simplest sensory image, reflection, copy or a kind of snapshot of individual properties of objects.
Any object has many different aspects and properties. Consequently, the objective basis for perceiving an image as a whole is the unity and at the same time the multiplicity of various aspects and properties of the object. Holistic image, reflecting objects that directly affect the senses, their properties and relationships, is called perception. Sensations and perceptions are realized and developed in the process of practical interaction between a person and the outside world, as a result of the active work of the senses.
Memory plays a very important cognitive role. It unites the past and the present into one organic whole, where there is their mutual penetration. If images, having appeared in the brain at the moment of exposure to an object, disappeared immediately after the cessation of this influence, then each time a person would perceive objects as completely unfamiliar.
Representations are images of those objects that once influenced the human senses and are then restored according to the connections preserved in the brain.
Sensations and perceptions are the beginning of conscious reflection. Memory consolidates and stores received information. In representation, consciousness is first torn away from its immediate source and begins to exist as a relatively independent subjective phenomenon. A person can creatively combine and create new images relatively freely. Representation is an intermediate link between perception and theoretical thinking.
Important methods of research in science, especially in natural science, are observation and experiment. Observation is a deliberate, systematic action carried out with the aim of identifying the essential properties and relationships of the object of knowledge. Observation requires special training. The most important place in this preparation is occupied by understanding the tasks of observation, the requirements that observation must satisfy, and the preliminary development of its plan and methods. Observation captures what nature itself offers. But a person cannot limit himself to the role of an observer. While conducting experiments, he is also an active tester. An experiment is a research method with the help of which an object is either reproduced artificially or placed under certain conditions that meet the goals of the study. A special form of cognition is a thought experiment that is performed on an imaginary model. It is characterized by a close interaction between imagination and thinking.
The process of cognition is carried out in such a way that we first observe the general picture of the subject being studied, and the particulars remain in the shadows. With such a view of things, it is impossible to know their internal structure and essence. To study the particulars, we must consider the components of the subject being studied. Analysis is the mental decomposition of an object into its constituent parts or sides. Being a necessary method of thinking, analysis is only one of the moments in the process of cognition.
Each area of knowledge has, as it were, its own limit of division of an object, beyond which we move into the world of other properties and patterns. When the particulars have been sufficiently studied through analysis, the next stage of cognition begins - synthesis - the mental unification into a single whole of elements dissected by analysis. Analysis mainly captures that specific thing that distinguishes parts from each other. Synthesis reveals that essential commonality that connects the parts into a single whole.
From birth, a person is forced to interact with the surrounding reality and other people. He tries to comprehend what he saw and heard. This promotes the ability to live in harmony with nature and oneself. The science of epistemology defines perception as a phenomenon and distinguishes its two main forms: rational and sensory cognition.
What is sensory knowledge?
Sensory cognition is a set of methods for understanding the world around us. Traditionally it is contrasted with thinking, which is secondary. The type of mastering reality with the help of feelings does not rely on a mental analysis of the properties of any objects. Form specific images and gain primary knowledge about outside objects allows the anatomical and physiological system. The five main senses are responsible for this:
- vision;
- hearing;
- taste;
- sense of smell;
- touch.
Psychology of sensory cognition
From a psychological point of view, cognition is a process that occurs in several stages. At the first stage, the external world and all objects in it are literally “imprinted” into the human psyche. The second stage is comprehension, that is, the formation of concepts and judgments. Final stage“exit” from the psyche, when an idea comes, knowledge is formed that allows one to interpret the original feelings.
Sensory knowledge is inherent only to man. In animals it is observed to a lesser extent; with its help they gain the necessary experience. The thinking and sensory cognition of people differ from animals in that they are biosocial. We can say that cognitive abilities have evolved and become humanized. Without rationality it is impossible to penetrate into the essence of things and understand the cause of phenomena. These are parties to a single process.
Sensory knowledge in philosophy
The special science of epistemology (from the Greek gnosis - knowledge, logos - teaching), which considers cognition as a phenomenon, belongs to the section of philosophy. There is a separate movement in it: sensationalism (from the Latin sensus - perception), one of the postulates of which is: in the mind there cannot but be something that would not have previously arisen in the feelings. Most main question, which worries thinkers: do people adequately assess reality? The famous German philosopher Immanuel Kant said that the comprehension of everything begins with experience - the “work” of the senses - and he identified several stages in it:
- emotions;
- reason;
Even the ancient Greek philosophers believed that the most basic and reliable form of mastering reality is sensations and feelings. Domestic philosophical literature, based on the works of V.I. Lenin, distinguished them as an independent level, lower in relation to abstract thinking. Modern science refutes old theories, because thinking in emotional and non-sensual forms is different, but each has its own advantages and cannot be inferior to the other. The ability for sensory cognition is inherent in everyone.
Sensory cognition - pros and cons
If you compare rationalism and sensationalism, you can find their pros and cons. Emotions and sensations play a primary role in getting to know the outside world, moreover this type a person gains knowledge himself and quickly. But the sensory way of knowing the world is limited and has its drawbacks:
- there are limits to this process;
- there are errors;
- it is subjective;
- reflects only the characteristics of various objects;
- people's consciousness is much more complex and broader than a set of impressions;
- the content of the intellect cannot be reduced to images and sensations.
Types of sensory cognition
Sensory knowledge of the world is carried out using the sensory system. Each analyzer is influenced by the entire system. Several types of perception are formed:
- using hearing;
- vision;
- tactile contact;
- sense of smell;
- taste buds;
- vestibular apparatus.
Some argue that intuition is sensory knowledge. However, it stands apart from rationalism and sensationalism and is the ability to comprehend the truth as a result of “insight.” does not rely on sensations and logical evidence. We can call it a peculiar form of two things - both rational and irrational judgment.
The role of sensory cognition
Without sensory organs, a person is not capable of comprehending reality. Only thanks to his analyzers does he keep in touch with the outside world. The processes of sensory cognition are involved when there is a need to obtain information about a phenomenon, although it will be superficial and incomplete. If an individual has lost part of the means for contemplation (blind, deaf, etc.), compensation will occur, that is, other organs will begin to work at an increased pace and mode. Especially imperfection human body and the importance of biological sensors are noticeable when the deficiencies are congenital.
Signs of sensory cognition
Both people and animals know how to use sensory knowledge. But there is an important element inherent only to intelligent beings: the ability to imagine something that one has not seen with one’s own eyes. The specificity of people's sensory cognition is that they form images based on the stories of others. Therefore, we can talk about the enormous role of language in the implementation cognitive process using sensory organs. The main feature of sensationalistic perception is a direct reflection of the surrounding reality.
Methods of sensory cognition
There are many sets of operations and techniques through which cognition is carried out. All methods are divided into two types: empirical and theoretical. Due to the peculiarity of sensory cognition, most theoretical (or scientific) techniques, such as analysis, deduction, analogy, etc., are not applicable to it. Creating an impression of objects is possible only through the following actions:
- Observation is the perception of phenomena without interfering with them.
- Measurement is the determination of the relationship of the measured object to the reference one.
- Comparison – identifying similarities and differences.
- Experiment - placing objects and phenomena in controlled conditions and studying them.
Forms of sensory knowledge
Sensory cognition is step by step process and has three steps that prepare for the transition to another level - abstraction, which is higher. Basic forms of sensory cognition:
- Feeling. The starting stage at which objects influence human organs. Gives a one-sided view of things, e.g. beautiful flower It can smell terrible, and a pleasant-looking apple can taste disgusting.
- Perception, allowing you to accumulate knowledge based on one or more sensations and form a holistic image.
- Performance. Reproduction and creation of images that appear in memory. Without this step, it will not be possible to comprehend reality, since a visual image is formed.
Any sensory knowledge has boundaries, because it is incapable of delving into the essence of phenomena. To go beyond them, thinking is used, which also arises on the basis of previously formed images. To understand the inner essence of phenomena, logic and analysis are used: this is the next step. Living contemplation and abstract thinking are inseparable and equally participate in the path of comprehending reality.