Open Library - an open library of educational information. What stages can be roughly distinguished in modern scientific activity? Scientific knowledge of nature and society

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

The same can be said about the laws of motion and all other fundamental theoretical laws of any field of science. At this level of knowledge, the development of hypotheses, scientific modeling, and the creative imagination of the scientist play a huge role. Many scientific propositions initially appear in the form of hypotheses, i.e. assumptions, guesses. Sometimes hypotheses are perceived as something far-fetched and artificial. But scientific research is impossible without them. During the course of research, a stage comes when new facts do not fit into the framework of previous explanations. This is where various hypotheses are needed, some of which are then confirmed. Thus, physicist P. Dirac predicted the existence of an antielectron (positron) several years before this particle was discovered experimentally. A scientific hypothesis is, in a sense, a model. Here the reasoning is based on the formula “this could have happened.” Many models are built on the principle of simplification: “let’s omit some details for clarity.” An example of such a model is the idea of an ideal gas: there is no collision between molecules, so they move completely independently of each other. Often a model is built by analogy. Such models have been used since ancient times. The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus imagined the structure of liquids to be modeled on free-flowing bodies, primarily the well-known grain. In modern science, mathematical modeling is widely used, where the substitute object is a system of mathematical equations. At the same time, figurative models continue to work for science. Thus, according to some evidence, the impetus for the discovery of the benzene formula by the German physicist A. Kekule was his meeting on the street with a cart on which a cage with monkeys was being transported. They hung in the cage, clinging with their paws and tails, some to the walls, some to each other. Summarizing what has been said, we can conclude that a model in science is used as an analogue of reality, capable of replacing the subject being studied in a certain respect.

DIFFERENTIATION AND INTEGRATION OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

Let us remind you of the meaning of the terms included in the subtitle. Differentiation (from the Latin differentia - difference) means division, dismemberment of the whole into parts, forms, etc. The term "integration" (from the Latin integration - restoration) captures the reverse process - the convergence and connection of various parts, processes, phenomena. The beginnings of scientific knowledge appeared a very long time ago. Already the ancient Eastern civilizations had accumulated a lot of astronomical, mathematical, and medical knowledge. Ancient Greek thinkers were the first to move on to the creation of logically related systems - theories (mathematical, philosophical, cosmogonic). However, elements of scientific knowledge were, as it were, dissolved in more general cognitive systems: first in mythology, and then in philosophy. The idea of science as an independent and most valuable form of understanding the world and man takes shape in the modern era. And immediately scientific knowledge begins to differentiate - separate sciences appear with their own subject matter and research methods. Following mathematics, scientific natural science takes shape. The idea is affirmed that changes in objects are governed by laws - universal and universal connections that dominate the natural world. The study of these connections becomes possible thanks to the emergence of theoretical and experimental scientific methods. The rapid development of industry in the era of industrial civilization and the invention of new engineering devices were associated with the emergence of technical sciences. In the second half of the 19th century. The formation of social and humanitarian scientific knowledge is taking place. The emergence of social sciences was facilitated by two circumstances: firstly, which began in the 19th century. profound social changes that have created a need for a better understanding of social processes and their possible management; secondly, the obvious progress of natural science.

The latter circumstance gave rise to the desire to create a scientific sociology modeled on the natural sciences: the new social science began to be called “social physics.” Soon, however, researchers paid attention to the specifics of social knowledge. The last to take shape were the humanities, or, as one philosopher defined it, the “sciences of the spirit.” These sciences, using their means, primarily methods of text analysis, study the phenomena of spiritual culture. This area of scientific knowledge has serious “competitors” - philosophy and religion. The differentiation of scientific knowledge continued in subsequent decades. It took on a particularly violent character in the last century. In the subject of research of the classical sciences, more and more new facets were highlighted, and the palette of research methods expanded. This allowed new branches of scientific knowledge to emerge. Many of them arose at the intersection of traditional fields of science: physical chemistry, mathematical linguistics, social psychology, etc. The differentiation of sciences made it possible to obtain deeper knowledge about the objects being studied and to identify previously hidden aspects and relationships. At the same time, there was a growing need for the integration of scientific knowledge, making it possible to combine often disparate components into a single picture, and therefore to trace the defining connections in the development of the whole. The lack of integration of scientific knowledge was especially acute in the study of man as an integral developing system. To overcome it, a special scientific institute was created in our country at the end of the last century, bringing together specialists from different fields; Periodicals on relevant topics began to be published. According to experts, the integration of scientific knowledge is hampered by a shortage of unifying scientific ideas; the rapid growth of specialized scientific knowledge, which does not allow scientists to become specialists in a number of scientific disciplines (in other words, the age of encyclopedists has irrevocably passed).

HOW SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS OCCUR

For a long time, the development of science seemed to be a gradual collection of information and refinement of what was already known, just as a wall is built brick by brick. With this approach, the picture of the world does not change in its fundamentals, but only covers all new spheres of reality, while the sources of the knowledge obtained by science can always be found in the past. Therefore, it is very important to study the works of predecessors. In the middle of our century, the American philosopher T. Kuhn proposed another concept of the development of science, according to which it does not proceed through a smooth increase in new knowledge, but through periodic and fundamental changes in the system of scientific knowledge, i.e. through scientific revolutions. At the stage of the so-called normal period of scientific development, existing scientific theories make it possible to successfully solve emerging problems. But facts are gradually accumulating that cannot be explained within the framework of these theories. The crisis stage begins, when bold hypotheses are put forward, scientific discoveries occur, and new ways to solve scientific problems are proposed. As a result, new, often incompatible with previous scientific theories are formed that explain the entire body of accumulated empirical data. This means that a scientific revolution has occurred. A striking example of such a revolution is the change in the scientific picture of the world that occurred at the beginning of the 20th century. The research of A. Einstein, M. Planck and other outstanding scientists radically changed ideas about space, time, and matter. And yet, having significantly enriched them, the physics of the last century did not abolish previous ideas, but pointed to the area within which they are valid.

SCIENTIFIC THINKING AND MODERN MAN

Some believe that in the 20th century. science revealed its powerlessness in solving a number of problems important to humanity, moreover, it became the source of many new difficulties, leading Western civilization to decline. There is also such a point of view: humanity, like a pendulum, is constantly moving from the phase of preference for rational thinking and science to the phase of the decline of rationalism and an increasing craving for faith and revelation. Thus, the first flowering of enlightenment occurred in the era of classical Greece: it was then that the transition from mythological to rational thinking was made. By the end of the reign of Pericles, the pendulum swung in the opposite direction: all kinds of cults, magical healing, and astrological forecasts took center stage. Supporters of this point of view believe that modern humanity has entered the final phase of the flowering of rationalism, which began with the Age of Enlightenment. But perhaps those who believe that civilization has already accumulated a certain fatigue from the burden of choice and responsibility and that astrological predestination is preferable to scientific criticism and constant doubts are right. (What do you think?) Basic concepts: scientific theory, empirical law, hypothesis, scientific experiment, modeling, scientific revolution. Terms: differentiation, integration.

Test yourself

1) What are the main differences between scientific knowledge and everyday knowledge? 2) What characterizes the empirical level of scientific knowledge? 3) What is inherent in the theoretical level of science? 4) Correlate the levels and methods of scientific knowledge. 5) What distinguishes an experiment from an observation? 6) What is the role of hypothesis in scientific knowledge? 7) Give examples of scientific modeling. 8) How is the differentiation of scientific knowledge manifested? What are its reasons? 9) What makes it difficult to integrate scientific knowledge in modern conditions? 10) How does the scientific revolution develop?

Think, discuss, do

1. Here is how the German philosopher K. Popper proved the unscientific nature of astrology: the prophecies of astrologers are vague, they are difficult to verify, many prophecies did not come true, astrologers use an unsatisfactory way of explaining their failures (predicting the individual future is a difficult task; the relative positions of stars and planets are constantly changing and etc.). What criteria for distinguishing scientific and extra-scientific knowledge can be identified using this example? Name other criteria. 2. Expand your understanding of Pushkin’s lines “Science reduces our experiences of fast-flowing life.” 3. L. Pasteur argued: “Science should be the most sublime embodiment of the fatherland, for of all nations the first will always be the one that is ahead of others in the field of thought and mental activity.” Is this conclusion confirmed by the course of history? 4. Find errors in the following text. Rigorous empirical knowledge is accumulated only through observation. Close to observation is experiment. But it no longer provides strict knowledge, because a person here interferes with the nature of the subject being studied: he places it in an environment unusual for it, tests it in extreme conditions. Thus, the knowledge obtained during the experiment can only be partially considered true and objective.

Work with the source

Read an excerpt from the work of the German philosopher K. Jaspers “The Origins of History and Its Purpose.”

Modern science

Casting a glance at world history, we discover three stages of knowledge: firstly, rationalization in general, which in one form or another is a universal human property, appears with man as such; ...secondly, the formation of a logically and methodically conscious science - Greek science and, in parallel, the beginnings of scientific knowledge in China and India; thirdly, the emergence of modern science, growing from the end of the Middle Ages, decisively establishing itself from the 17th century. and unfolding in all its breadth since the 19th century. This science makes European culture - at least since the 17th century. - different from the culture of all other countries... Science has three necessary characteristics: cognitive methods, reliability and universal significance... Modern science is universal in spirit. There is no area that could isolate itself from it for a long time. Everything that happens in the world is subject to observation, consideration, research - natural phenomena, actions or statements of people, their creations and destinies. Religion and all authorities also become the object of study. And not only reality, but also all mental possibilities become the object of study... Modern science, turned to the individual, strives to reveal its comprehensive connections... The idea of the interconnectedness of all sciences gives rise to dissatisfaction with individual knowledge. Modern science is not only universal, but strives for a unification of sciences that can never be achieved. Every science is defined by a method and a subject. Each is a perspective on the vision of the world, none comprehends the world as such, each covers a segment of reality, but not reality - perhaps one side of reality, but not reality as a whole, however, each of them enters into a world that is limitless, but after all, one in a kaleidoscope of connections... Questions and tasks: 1) What stages of cognition does the author highlight? 2) What does the philosopher understand by such a feature of modern science as universality? 3) How does the text treat the problem of integration and differentiation of scientific knowledge? 4) How does the author explain the impossibility of complete unification of the sciences?

22. Social cognition

Remember:

What is the difference between the social sciences and the natural sciences? What are the features of activity in the spiritual sphere?

Let's imagine a scientist bending over a microscope, in front of the control panel of a microparticle accelerator or the terminal of a modern telescope. The study of the living, micro- and macro-world includes scrupulous observation, verified calculations and experiments, and the construction of mathematical or computer models. When studying society, scientists also observe, compare, calculate, and sometimes experiment (for example, selecting a space crew or a polar expedition based on the principle of psychological compatibility). Does this mean that the same methods are used to study society as to study nature? Scientists have answered this question in different ways.

SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF NATURE AND SOCIETY

The idea that all sciences should use the methods of mathematical science originated in the 18th century. under the influence of the successes of natural science that amazed the imagination of contemporaries, and especially the technical applications of mechanics. The development of technology contributed to an unprecedented rise in social productive forces and transformed people's daily lives. The enormous cultural authority of the natural sciences predetermined the role of mechanics as a model in accordance with which both natural and social sciences were to be built. The founder of sociology, the French scientist O. Comte, believed that the science of society should study the connections between observed social phenomena using natural scientific methods, so he called sociology “social physics.” His follower, E. Durkheim, considered social facts to be all social phenomena that influence a person and encourage him to behave in a certain way. He included legal and moral norms, customary ways of doing things, social movements, and even fashion as social facts. E. Durkheim considered the main principle of the scientific method in sociology to be the attitude towards social facts as things.

This meant identifying the connection and dependence between them, just as one studies the causal relationship of natural phenomena. The wide dissemination of naturalistic ideas about society at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. contributed to the objective social processes of the formation of industrial capitalism - the decomposition of the social structures of traditional society and the formation of a mass society. It is in a mass society, deprived of the complex social hierarchy characteristic of feudalism, that the opportunity arises to widely use mathematical methods to study social phenomena. But not all scientists shared such naturalistic views. Thus, the German philosopher W. Dilthey believed that the “sciences of the spirit” are fundamentally different from the “sciences of nature” in that the former deal with man - the only creature in the Universe capable of not only cognition, but also experience. This is a special activity of human consciousness, arising from the connection between the phenomena of his inner life. Realizing his own involvement in the world of society and culture, the scientist empathizes, that is, understands other people, compatriots and contemporaries, texts and meanings of other eras and other cultures. W. Dilthey was convinced that the fundamental difference between the natural and social sciences lies in the method: the “spiritual sciences” are understanding, while the natural sciences are explanatory. Another German philosopher, a follower of I. Kant, G. Rickert, also believed that the sciences of culture differ significantly from the sciences of nature. Their main difference, in his opinion, is the researcher’s approach to studying his object. When studying nature, a scientist strives to discover what is common, that is, what is similar in the phenomenon being studied to other phenomena of the same type. In the cultural sciences, the scientist’s interest is directed mainly at the individual, that is, at what is specific to a given phenomenon. It is the unique individuality of the object, G. Rickert is convinced, that gives it the significance of an object of culture, in contrast to objects of nature.

And although some social sciences, such as economics, can also use methods of generalization, cultural research is more like the work of a historian who is interested in the individual and unique in the events of the past. At the same time, when working with cultural material, a scientist always correlates it with universally significant values: moral, political, economic, artistic, religious. Attribution to universal values, according to the scientist, allows the sciences of culture to be as objective as the sciences of nature. What are the difficulties of objective scientific knowledge of society? In classical natural science, the objectivity of scientific research was understood as the study of nature independently of man, that is, nature “in itself.” Therefore, a scientist studying the interaction of elementary particles or the behavior of animals tends to exclude himself from the research situation. But he is still included in it, albeit in a special way: he “constrained nature with the art of the observer” and formulated a question addressed to nature to which he wants to receive an answer. But a social scientist cannot exclude himself from the process of social development, and the results of his research affect both his own life and the future of his children. Social cognition concerns people's interests - stable social orientations that guide people in everyday life and business relationships. Modern scientists talk about the possibility of different interpretations of the phenomena of social life - pluralism of opinions. They are generated not only by personal biases, preferences or differences in life experience, but also by divergent social interests that express the different positions of people in the system of social relations. This explains the diversity of views and assessments that distinguishes the results of social cognition from generally valid judgments in natural science. M. Weber gives an example of the impact of corporate interests on social cognition. When compiling crime statistics, the police, protecting the “honor of the uniform,” tend to present any unsolved murder as a suicide, while the church, guided by the idea of suicide as a grave sin, tends to interpret dubious cases as crimes. English philosopher of the 17th century. T. Hobbes even believed that if geometry affected the interests of people, then it would be disputed or hushed up. The impact of social interests on social cognition is most clearly manifested in ideology - the theoretical expression of social interests in election declarations, programs of political parties and broad social movements. When comparing the ideological attitudes of various political parties or election associations, first of all it is necessary to find out the interests of which social forces they express. If we comprehend nature using the concepts of cause and effect, then human action is by studying the motives, goals and intentions of man. And if a cause in nature always entails an effect, then the motives and intentions of one person, interacting in a complex way with the motives and intentions of other people, as well as the traditions, morals and laws of society, cannot always be embodied in actions. Conscious abstinence from an action that is prescribed by social norms and socially significant motives of behavior, for example, refusal to sell a product at a set price, failure to appear in court, evasion of responsibility, as well as missed opportunity and criminal inactivity, are no less objective social facts than social actions. Scientific social knowledge deals with human actions and their consequences, that is, with events in culture and social life. This world is humanized, it is conscious and meaningful. The concept of meaning expresses a specifically human attitude towards an object. M. Weber believed that the sociological study of society is aimed at understanding the meaning of individual human actions, which ultimately make up all social life. But how is it possible to scientifically study the subjective dimensions of social actions: meanings, motives, intentions? Indeed, unlike the objects of natural sciences, they are immaterial and express a human attitude towards objects of any kind, and not objects in themselves. As we see, the difficulties on the path of objective scientific knowledge of society are great. What should a scientist be guided by in order to achieve a sufficient level of accuracy and objectivity of social knowledge?

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIAL COGNITION

In order to overcome these difficulties, when studying the phenomena of social life, the scientist is guided by scientific methods. A scientist studying society resorts to general scientific methods, i.e., methods of obtaining knowledge and norms of scientific research characteristic of both natural and social sciences. These include reliance on facts, rigor and unambiguity of theoretical concepts, evidence of reasoning and their logical consistency, objectivity of scientific conclusions, i.e., independence of scientific truth from personal desires, opinions and social prejudices. But knowledge of society also has its own characteristics. In contrast to the natural scientist, who strives to exclude his own uncontrolled influence on the subject of research and sees this as a condition for achieving the objectivity of scientific knowledge, the social scientist studies an object to which he himself belongs: he is both a researcher of social life and a participant in it. Moreover, the condition for successful knowledge of other people, cultures and historical eras is the ability of empathy, sympathy, the ability to see and feel the way other people see and feel. This takes on particular significance in a situation of “participant observation,” in which the scientist himself strives to act like those whom he observes. But at the same time, he must be extremely attentive to the premises of his thinking, which are drawn from his own life, from the traditions of his education, upbringing and scientific school: inattention to them can distort the picture of the life of other people and cultures. Therefore, M. Weber called on the scientist to “keep a distance from the object,” warning that an uncritical attitude to one’s own sociocultural experience when studying someone else’s is as reprehensible as selfishness in everyday life. A social scientist strives for a complete description of the characteristics of the object being studied. This means that any social phenomenon must be considered in its historical development and in mutual connection with other social phenomena, that is, in a historical and cultural context. In order to understand, for example, the social nature of the Jacobin terror, it is necessary to consider it not as an isolated event, but in the context of the Great French Revolution, as one of the stages of its development. But it is also necessary to approach the Great French Revolution itself specifically historically, to consider its systemic connections with other events in European history, and at the same time not to lose sight of how this event was understood and experienced by representatives of various strata of the society of that time. The science of history helps us understand the connection of times, without which the events of the past would have broken up into a series of separate episodes. It relies on historical documents - evidence that allows us to get an idea of the life of our ancestors. However, a fact of science is not an event in life. Nor is it a scrupulous description of what is happening. A scientific fact always involves identifying what is significant in the social phenomenon being studied. It includes the scientist’s assessment of his role in what is happening and the interpretation of a social fact. By creating a holistic scientific theory, a scientist determines which of the facts known to him are significant for understanding a social pattern. His theoretical position, on the one hand, determines the direction of the search for new facts, the existence of which is predicted by his concept, and on the other hand, the discovery of other facts that are not consistent with this concept forces it to be clarified, and sometimes even to reject it as incorrect.

IDEAL TYPE -- INSTRUMENT OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIAL COGNITION

In scientific social cognition, as well as in the natural sciences, scientific concepts are used. When studying social actions, scientists resort to the use of concepts of a special kind - ideal types. The ideal type allows us to capture the most important, consistently recurring features of the subject of a certain social action. Thus, describing the ideal type of a capitalist entrepreneur, M. Weber paints a portrait of a young man with an ascetic lifestyle, a Protestant religion, who travels from village to city every day, organizing the delivery of raw materials to processing sites, and finished goods to the market. Of course, the ideal type lacks the concreteness of an artistic image. We don’t know the young man’s name, where he lives, or what kind of product he produces. But it is precisely this generalization of characteristics that is important for scientific social cognition: while losing to the artistic understanding of the world in concrete terms, the ideal type allows one to go beyond the existing situation and describe the typical, i.e., steadily repeating, characteristics of the subject of a certain social action, wherever and under whatever conditions circumstances it did not happen. The ideal-typing methodology allowed M. Weber to theoretically express the laws of the process of formation of capitalism in Western Europe, regardless of the diversity of specific conditions in different countries. The use of ideal types helps the scientist gain knowledge about stable and systematically reproduced relationships of large groups of people, classes, and states. With the help of ideal types, a scientist can look into the future, but only to the extent that the features of modernity, presented as typical, will retain their significance in the future. The ideal type as a tool of social analysis is not a description of the behavior of a particular person. He is a character in a scientific picture of the social process, which reproduces real life in its essential features.

ORDINARY AND SCIENTIFIC SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE

Until now we have talked only about scientific social knowledge. But the concept of social knowledge is much broader. It covers the entire body of accumulated knowledge about man and society, enshrined both in oral tradition and in books, scientific publications, works of art and historical monuments, which for scientists play the role of documents. Social knowledge can be not only scientific, but also ordinary, that is, acquired in everyday life. Scientific knowledge is always conscious, systematized and meets the rules of the scientific method. Ordinary knowledge, as a rule, is not systematized or even consciously understood - it can exist in the form of habit or custom. And if scientific knowledge is carried out by a special category of professionally trained people united in the scientific community, then the subject of everyday knowledge is society as a whole. One of the features of scientific social knowledge in comparison with natural science is that the object of scientific social knowledge, as a rule, has already been mastered in one way or another by everyday thinking. And if the scientific picture of nature means nothing for physical fields and particles, then the scientific picture of society reflects a reality that is already interpreted by people in everyday life. And this social world, already comprehended at the level of everyday knowledge, must, in turn, be comprehended by the scientist in accordance with the rules of the scientific method. However, this does not mean that ordinary knowledge is erroneous and scientific knowledge is true. Modern scientists believe that both types of social knowledge are equally important in social life. Science must take into account the ordinary, including erroneous, ideas of people, and study the public opinion of all layers of society. Modern society introduces into everyday life not only complex technical devices, but also complex forms of social relationships that require awareness in economic, political, legal and other areas.

Therefore, modern man in everyday life cannot do without turning to elements of scientific knowledge. In modern society, everyday knowledge includes elements of scientific knowledge. Of course, the person who picks up the telephone does not necessarily know what technical devices make it possible to reproduce the sound of his voice hundreds of kilometers away, but the idea that the telephone transmits sound vibrations, somehow converting them into electrical ones, is still It has. Modern man shows similar awareness in relation to scientific social knowledge. Anyone who opened a bank account is not necessarily familiar with the laws of circulation of paper money. But he has an idea about money as a way of regulating his social relations with his employer, about inflation, and bank interest. The media have a huge influence on everyday social cognition. Modern people learn about what is happening in the world from newspapers, radio and television. Imperiously intruding into our lives, the media convey to the viewer, reader, listener a judgment about what is happening, that is, a more or less agreed opinion of the journalistic community. But it may not coincide with the opinion of scientists. After all, a journalist strives to inform about an event, often emphasizing the role of random but effective details that can make an impression. The scientist, on the contrary, is interested in the essence of the phenomenon being studied in a form purified from accidents. In addition, coverage of current events is also related to the degree of dependence of the media on the authorities and financial corporations, i.e., on the level of freedom of speech achieved in society. Therefore, each person must have a significant stock of social knowledge, be able to compare and analyze information gleaned from different sources in order to be able to assess what is happening in society.

SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

Social knowledge includes not only social sciences and everyday ideas, but also a huge sphere of humanities. Social sciences include all types of scientific knowledge of society that follow the rules of the scientific method. This, as you know, is sociology, economics, political science, law, ethnography, etc. Social sciences produce knowledge about relatively stable and systematically reproduced connections and relationships between peoples, classes, and professional groups. Social sciences study their subject with the help of ideal types, which make it possible to capture what is stable and repeated in human actions, in society and culture. Humanitarian knowledge is addressed to the spiritual world of man. The guardians of humanitarian knowledge are diaries, reviews, biographies of famous people, public speeches, policy statements, art criticism, and epistolary heritage. They are studied by psychology, linguistics, art history, and literary criticism. The boundary between social sciences and humanities is not rigid. Social sciences, while maintaining a connection with the human life world, also include elements of humanitarian knowledge. When a historian examines historical patterns and ideal-typical characteristics, he acts as a social scientist. By addressing the motives of characters and studying diaries, letters and speeches, he acts as a humanities scholar. But humanitarian knowledge also borrows elements of the social. Scientists talk about rules for writing biographies and describing individual cases, which are increasingly used in modern social sciences. The evaluation of works of art, in turn, is also not an expression of the subjective opinion of the critic, but is based on an analysis of the composition of the work, artistic images, means of artistic expression, etc. Addressed to the spiritual world of man, his experiences, fears and hopes, humanitarian knowledge requires understanding. To understand a text means to give it meaning. But it may not be exactly what its creator had in mind. We cannot have reliable knowledge about his thoughts and feelings, but judge them only with varying degrees of probability.

But we always interpret the text, that is, we attribute to it the meaning that we think the author had in mind. And in order to get closer to the origins of the author’s intention, it is useful to know who wrote the work and under what circumstances, what the author’s social circle was, and what tasks he set for himself. A person gives meaning to a text in accordance with his personal stock of social knowledge. Therefore, great works of art resonate differently in the hearts of millions of people and retain their meaning for many generations. Lacking the rigor and universality of natural science knowledge, humanities knowledge performs important functions in culture. Addressed to the spiritual world of man, humanitarian knowledge awakens in him a desire for the sublime and beautiful, ennobles his aspirations, and encourages moral and ideological quests. In the most developed form, such searches are embodied in philosophy, but every person is a bit of a philosopher to the extent that he asks questions of being and knowledge, moral improvement and the rational structure of society. Entering the world of humanitarian knowledge, a person expands the horizons of knowledge, learns to comprehend someone else's - and his own - inner world with a degree of depth that is unattainable in the closest personal communication. In a humanitarian culture, a person acquires the gift of social imagination, comprehends the art of empathy, the ability to understand another, which gives the very possibility of living together in society. Basic concepts: scientific social knowledge, everyday knowledge, methods of social cognition, social fact, meaning, values, interpretation, understanding. Terms: cultural context, specific historical approach, ideal type.

Test yourself

1) What is the uniqueness of social knowledge in comparison with natural science? What is the difference between the objectivity of natural science, social and humanitarian knowledge? 2) Is it possible to identify a fact of social science with an event, with what happened in life? 3) What is the problem of interpreting a text, action, historical document? What does correct understanding mean? Is it possible to achieve a single correct understanding? 4) How does an ideal type differ from an artistic image? Can an ideal type be considered a scientific description of a specific person? 5) Do you agree with the statement that ordinary knowledge is erroneous and scientific knowledge is true? Why is it necessary to study public opinion?

Think, discuss, do

1. The modern philosopher P. Berger, referring to the dependence of the press on the balance of social forces, wrote: “Whoever has the longer stick has a greater chance of imposing his ideas on society.” Do you agree with this idea? 2. There is an opinion that history does not have a subjunctive mood. Is it worth discussing what could have happened if this had not happened? Are missed chances and lost opportunities social facts? Explain your answer. 3. Social knowledge is usually divided into social sciences and humanities. To which of these parts can Protagoras’ thesis “Man is the measure of all things” be attributed? 4. There is a well-known parable about two workers. When asked what they were doing, one answered: “Carrying stones,” and the other: “Building a temple.” Can you say that one of the statements is true and the other is false? Give reasons for your answer. 5. The German philosopher W. Dilthey believed that to understand “means to experience personally.”

Do you agree with this? Can a person understand something that he has not experienced? And is personal experience always understandable? 6. The chronicler Pimen from A. S. Pushkin’s tragedy “Boris Godunov” teaches Grigory Otrepyev: “Describe, without further ado, everything that you will witness in life.” Is it in principle possible to describe historical events free of interpretation? Concretize your conclusion using knowledge from the history course. 7. Imagine that you, like Miklouho-Maclay, went to study the life of native tribes. What will you pay attention to first of all: - what catches your eye most; - on what distinguishes the life of the natives from ours; - to sustainable and repeatable forms of practical activity?

Work with the source

Read an excerpt from the book by A. Schutz.

About natural and social sciences

The formation of concepts and theories in the social sciences has become a topic of discussion that has split not only logicians and methodologists, but also social scientists themselves into two camps for more than half a century. Some of them took the view that only the methods of the natural sciences, which led to such brilliant results, are scientific, and therefore only they should be used in their entirety for the study of human affairs. The refusal to use them, it was argued, prevented the social sciences from developing explanatory theories comparable in accuracy to those of the natural sciences... Representatives of another school saw a fundamental difference in the structure of the social and natural worlds. This feeling has led to the other extreme, namely the conclusion that the social sciences are entirely different from the natural sciences. Many arguments have been given to support this view. It was argued that the social sciences... are characterized by an individualizing approach and the search for individual affirmative judgments, while the natural sciences are generalizing, they are characterized by a search for universal reliable judgments. In a word, supporters of this school argue that the natural sciences must deal with material objects and processes, while the social sciences must deal with psychological and intellectual ones, and that, therefore, the method of the former is explanation, the latter - understanding. Questions and tasks: Do you agree that it is impossible to achieve understanding in the natural sciences, and the human sciences do not explain anything?

23. Knowledge and consciousness

Remember:

what is thinking? What is knowledge? What are the features of social cognition?

Scientists argue about the essence, origin and functions of consciousness. How does this concept differ from the concept of “knowledge”?

A person who has studied for many years at school does not need to explain what the word “knowledge” means. To know, to know, to understand means to have information (a set of information) about certain areas of reality. Knowledge is opposed to ignorance, ignorance. Psychology and philosophy study consciousness.

WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS

Understanding the essence of consciousness is directly dependent on resolving the issue of the relationship between spirit and nature, matter and consciousness. Recognition of the primacy of the ideal leads to the transformation of consciousness into an independent entity that creates the world. This approach was expressed in the period of Antiquity in the philosophy of Plato. In the Middle Ages, this approach was presented in Christian philosophy (God is the bearer of higher consciousness). In modern times in German classical philosophy, this approach developed in the views of G. Hegel. Materialistic philosophy considers consciousness as a property of highly organized matter, as a subjective image of the objective world, as ideal, i.e. subjective reality, as conscious existence. Solving the problem of consciousness also involves clarifying the prerequisites for its occurrence. Materialism sees them in the property of reflection, which lies at the foundation of matter. Consciousness arises in the process of labor, develops and is enriched under the influence of sociocultural reality. Practice plays a decisive role. The core of consciousness is knowledge. Therefore, for materialism it is legitimate to define consciousness as a subjective image of the objective world. This is nothing more than the ability of a person with knowledge to isolate himself from the surrounding world and contrast himself as a subject to it as an object.

Consciousness is also a preliminary mental construction of an image of the activity itself and a certain result obtained in the course of it. The properties of consciousness are activity and selectivity, subjectivity and creativity. The first of these properties is that the components of consciousness - images of reality and images of imagination, words, emotions, volitional impulses, etc. - form a holistic picture depending on what these components are combined around. Consciousness is not at all like a mirror or a surface of water in which the surrounding reality is reflected. This reality is rather intricately refracted and combined from individual fragments. For different people, the ideal reality that is created thanks to consciousness can vary significantly. What worries one person may be indifferent to another. Consciousness stores images of what makes sense to us. This selectivity manifests itself both at the individual level and at the social level.

“Man is the most insignificant blade of grass in nature, but a thinking blade.”

Blaise Pascal

The most important components of consciousness are needs and will. Interaction with the world gives rise to a certain attitude towards it in a person as a bearer of consciousness. This is expressed not only in mental assessments, but also in emotions and feelings. The process of cognition affects all aspects of a person’s inner world - needs, interests, feelings, will. An important role is played by memory, which allows you to preserve experience, build a bridge between the past and the present, as well as between the present, past and future. Since the object of consciousness is not only the external world, but also the subject himself, the bearer of consciousness, self-consciousness is an essential moment of consciousness. Self-awareness is a person’s awareness of his activities, thoughts, feelings, interests, needs. It will be discussed in the next paragraph. The conscious is internally connected with the unconscious, which is often opposed to it, and the unconscious plays a decisive role in human life. But there is another interpretation, based on the priority of the conscious. The unconscious can be viewed as a product of conscious activity. What was previously in the sphere of consciousness passes into the unconscious. In turn, the unconscious, existing in the depths of the human psyche, is capable of resurfacing into the area of consciousness. At the same time, modern psychology is faced with the fact that not everything that relates to knowledge is realized. Knowledge is not only what a person knows, but also what he is not currently thinking about, and therefore is not aware of, but which he can easily make accessible to his consciousness, for example, a student’s knowledge of the chemical formula of water, geometric theorems or facts own biography, etc. This is also knowledge that a person has and uses, but which can be realized with great difficulty, if at all. This is individual tacit knowledge used, for example, by experts. Knowing something significant in a certain field of science, an expert, if necessary, may not distinguish it from the total sum of his knowledge until a certain case, when he is required to compare his own knowledge with the object or theory presented to him and determine how much this object corresponds to what he knows. he knows. Awareness of all the premises and consequences of scientific theories is possible only under certain conditions and is never complete. In addition, some emotions and desires, some deep-seated attitudes of the individual, which will be discussed in the paragraph on the orientation of the individual, are difficult to comprehend. From the above we can conclude that knowledge is a necessary condition for consciousness, but a condition that is far from sufficient. A number of philosophers identify as the main feature of consciousness not knowledge, but focus on a specific subject, object. A person may not know anything about an object, but if he singles it out and directs his interest to it, this object becomes an object of consciousness. J. Locke has a theory about two sources of knowledge: sensations associated with the external world, and reflection as the observation of the mind over its own activities. The latter, according to Locke, is consciousness. Consciousness, with this understanding, acts as a specific reality, a special inner world that the subject cognizes. The way of knowing is self-perception, which can manifest itself in the form of introspection. Another point of view on the essence of consciousness was the understanding of it as a set of ideas - individual or collective. It is in this meaning that G. Hegel and K. Marx used the term “consciousness” when speaking about social consciousness, class consciousness. The concept of social consciousness has found wide application in the philosophy of Marxism.

INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Social consciousness does not exist without the consciousness of individuals. Personal ideas and beliefs acquire the character of public value, the significance of social force, when they go beyond the boundaries of personal existence and become common property, a general rule or belief, and enter into the general consciousness, morals, art, science, law, and norms of behavior. At the same time, the individual biography of the author of this or that idea no longer plays a decisive role. Thus, the idea of a social contract and the idea of separation of powers, put forward in specific conditions, did not lose their authorship, but became an important part of public consciousness. But society is selective about the results of the activity of individual consciousness: it takes some things and discards others. Not every achievement of individual consciousness is included in the general array of social consciousness. This depends on the depth and social significance of the spiritual activity of a given individual, on the need of the spirit of the time in her creativity. In turn, individual consciousness acts in a similar way.

It does not absorb all the elements of social consciousness. The norms of consciousness historically developed by society spiritually nourish the personality and become a source of moral precepts, beliefs, aesthetic feelings and ideas. But each person perceives the elements existing in the social consciousness differently (due to personal, individual characteristics). The fate of such historical figures as G. Bruno, G. Galileo, Joan of Arc, the fate of many of our contemporaries testify to the presence of a contradiction between personal and social consciousness, between the system of spiritual principles accepted in society and the ideas of individual citizens of a particular society. Personalities , ahead of their time, contribute to the development of social consciousness. Just as social consciousness is not reduced to the quantitative sum of individual consciousnesses, but manifests itself in the form of a specially organized ideal-objective reality, so individual consciousness is not an exact copy of social consciousness. A person enters into a dialogue with social consciousness, which is a reality that has to be reckoned with. Personal consciousness is the accumulated experience of history. A person, an individual, can feel his connection with the history of his family, country, his people. Each individual consciousness has its own sources of development, therefore, each personality is unique, despite the unity of the human culture that integrates it.

ESSENCE AND FEATURES OF PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS

In the process of the spiritual life of society, various knowledge and attitudes towards nature, objective reality, and everything that happens in society are formed. In addition, the moods, habits, mores, traditions of peoples, as well as the mental makeup of different social groups, take root in society. Thus, it is customary to talk about the efficiency of the Americans or the precision and pedantry of the Germans. At the same time, not all representatives of this group necessarily differ in these qualities.

...

Similar documents

The system of types of rationality and the place of social rationality in social science. Philosophical methodological analysis of the problems of the genesis of social science. Methods and methods for studying social reality. Specificity of manifestations of rationality.

test, added 08/03/2013

The history of the origin and content of the sociological concept of F. Tönnies. Characteristics of natural and rational will as the basis of “gemeinshaft” (community) and “gesellschaft” (society). The influence of the theory of the German sociologist on the development of social science.

test, added 11/27/2010

Acquaintance with elongated and too flat models of society, analysis of features. General characteristics of the social stratification of modern Russian society. Consideration of the main political regimes: totalitarianism, authoritarianism, democracy.

test, added 01/14/2014

Differences between the concepts of “individual” and “personality”. The biosocial essence of man as the highest stage of development of living organisms on earth, a subject of socio-historical activity and culture. Forms of community of people, the value and basic functions of the family.

course work, added 04/09/2011

Relationships between man and society. Communication with the outside world in conditions of constant change. Anthropological materialism of L. Feuerbach. Youth as a social community and an object of sociological study. The role of the media in the political life of society.

test, added 12/22/2010

The structure and levels of sociological knowledge, the subject of their study, their place in the system of social sciences and humanities. Sociological theories of Marx, Comte and Durkheim. Modern methods of sociological research. Study of the theory of social conflict.

course of lectures, added 06/09/2009

Object and subject of sociology. The essence of power, political domination as a form of its implementation. The history of the development of domestic thought in the field of social science, the three-level structure of sociological teachings. The relationship between power and sociology.

test, added 09/02/2012

Greening science and education. The level of scientific, technical and information technology development of natural reality. The phenomenon of greening as one of the ways of interconnecting sciences. Characteristics of socio-ecological synthesis of knowledge.

course work, added 03/17/2012

History and theoretical foundations of socio-cultural activity, its patterns, an idea of the main areas of its implementation. Characteristics of its main subjects and resource base. Contents and functions of modern socio-cultural technologies.

tutorial, added 12/10/2010

The concept of "culture", its formation and philosophical understanding. Culturology and its place in the system of public social and human sciences. The connection between cultural studies and the humanities, political science and economics. Culturology and philosophy of culture.

Casting a glance at world history, we discover three stages of knowledge: firstly, rationalization in general, which in one form or another is a universal human property, appears with man as such; ...secondly, the formation of logically and methodically conscious science - Greek science and, in parallel, the beginnings of scientific knowledge in China and India; thirdly, the emergence of modern science, growing from the end of the Middle Ages, decisively establishing itself from the 17th century. and unfolding in all its breadth since the 19th century. This science makes European culture - at least since the 17th century. - different from the culture of all other countries...
Science has three necessary characteristics: cognitive methods, reliability and general validity...
Modern science universal according to your spirit. There is no area that could isolate itself from it for a long time. Everything that happens in the world is subject to observation, consideration, research - natural phenomena, actions or statements of people, their creations and destinies. Religion and all authorities also become the object of study. And not only reality, but also all mental possibilities become the object of study...
Modern science, addressed to the individual, seeks to reveal its comprehensive connections... The idea of the interconnectedness of all sciences gives rise to dissatisfaction with individual knowledge. Modern science is not only universal, but strives for a unification of sciences that can never be achieved.
Every science is defined by a method and a subject. Each is a perspective of the vision of the world, not one comprehends the world as such, each covers a segment of reality, but not reality - perhaps one side of reality, but not reality as a whole, however, each of them enters into a world that is limitless, but all -still one in the kaleidoscope of connections...
Questions and tasks: 1) What stages of cognition does the author highlight? 2) What does the philosopher understand by such a feature of modern science as universality? 3) How does the text treat the problem of integration and differentiation of scientific knowledge? 4) How does the author explain the impossibility of complete unification of the sciences?

Each of us, even being very far from professional scientific activity, constantly uses the fruits of science, embodied in the mass of modern things. But science enters our lives not only through the “door” of mass production, technical innovations, and everyday comfort.
Scientific ideas about the structure of the world, about the place and role of man in it (the scientific picture of the world) to one degree or another penetrate into the consciousness of people; The principles and approaches to understanding reality developed by science become guidelines in our everyday life.
From about the 17th century, as industrial society developed, the authority of science and the methodology (principles, approaches) of scientific thinking became increasingly stronger. At the same time, alternative pictures of the world, including religious ones, and other ways of knowing (mystical insight, etc.) were gradually forced out to the periphery of public consciousness.
However, in recent decades, in a number of countries with traditionally strong trust in science, the situation has begun to change. Many researchers note the increasing influence of extrascientific knowledge. In this regard, they even talk about the existing two types of people. The first type is science-oriented. Its representatives are characterized by activity, internal independence, openness to new ideas and experience, willingness to flexibly adapt to changes in work and life, and practicality. They are open to discussion and skeptical of authority.
The thinking of another type of personality, focused on non-scientific pictures of the world, is characterized by an orientation towards practical benefits, an interest in the mysterious and miraculous. These people, as a rule, do not look for evidence of their results and are not interested in checking them. Priority is given to the sensory-concrete rather than the abstract-theoretical form of knowledge. They believe that anyone can make a discovery, not just a professional researcher. For such people, the main support is faith, opinions, authority. (Which type would you classify yourself as?)
But why is the influence of alternative scientific views and attitudes growing? There are different explanations given here. Some believe that in the 20th century. science revealed its powerlessness in solving a number of problems important to humanity, moreover, it became the source of many new difficulties, leading Western civilization to decline. There is also such a point of view: humanity, like a pendulum, is constantly moving from the phase of preference for rational thinking and science to the phase of the decline of rationalism and an increasing craving for faith and revelation. Thus, the first flowering of enlightenment occurred in the era of classical Greece: it was then that the transition from mythological to rational thinking was made. By the end of the reign of Pericles, the pendulum swung in the opposite direction: all kinds of cults, magical healing, and astrological forecasts took center stage. Supporters of this point of view believe that modern humanity has entered the final phase of the flowering of rationalism, which began with the Age of Enlightenment.
But perhaps those who believe that civilization has already accumulated a certain fatigue from the burden of choice and responsibility and that astrological predestination is preferable to scientific criticism and constant doubts are right. (What do you think?)
Basic concepts: scientific theory, empirical law, hypothesis, scientific experiment, modeling, scientific revolution.
Terms: differentiation, integration.

1. Here is how the German philosopher K. Popper proved the unscientific nature of astrology: the prophecies of astrologers are vague, they are difficult to verify, many prophecies did not come true, astrologers use an unsatisfactory way of explaining their failures (predicting the individual future is a difficult task; the relative positions of stars and planets are constantly changing, etc. . P.).
What criteria for distinguishing scientific and extra-scientific knowledge can be identified using this example? Name other criteria.
2. Expand your understanding of Pushkin’s lines “Science reduces our experiences of fast-flowing life.”
3. L. Pasteur argued: “Science should be the most sublime embodiment of the fatherland, for of all nations the first will always be the one that is ahead of others in the field of thought and mental activity.”
Is this conclusion confirmed by the course of history?
4. Find errors in the following text.
Rigorous empirical knowledge is accumulated only through observation. Close to observation is experiment. But it no longer provides strict knowledge, because a person here interferes with the nature of the subject being studied: he places it in an environment unusual for it, tests it in extreme conditions. Thus, the knowledge obtained during the experiment can only be partially considered true and objective.

Work with the source

Read an excerpt from the work of the German philosopher K. Jaspers “The Origins of History and Its Purpose.”

Modern science

Casting a glance at world history, we discover three stages of knowledge: firstly, rationalization in general, which in one form or another is a universal human property, appears with man as such; ...secondly, the formation of logically and methodically conscious science - Greek science and, in parallel, the beginnings of scientific knowledge in China and India; thirdly, the emergence of modern science, growing from the end of the Middle Ages, decisively establishing itself from the 17th century. and unfolding in all its breadth since the 19th century. This science makes European culture - at least since the 17th century. - different from the culture of all other countries...
Science has three necessary characteristics: cognitive methods, reliability and general validity...
Modern science universal according to your spirit. There is no area that could isolate itself from it for a long time. Everything that happens in the world is subject to observation, consideration, research - natural phenomena, actions or statements of people, their creations and destinies. Religion and all authorities also become the object of study. And not only reality, but also all mental possibilities become the object of study...
Modern science, addressed to the individual, seeks to reveal its comprehensive connections... The idea of the interconnectedness of all sciences gives rise to dissatisfaction with individual knowledge. Modern science is not only universal, but strives for a unification of sciences that can never be achieved.
Every science is defined by a method and a subject. Each is a perspective of the vision of the world, not one comprehends the world as such, each covers a segment of reality, but not reality - perhaps one side of reality, but not reality as a whole, however, each of them enters into a world that is limitless, but all -still one in the kaleidoscope of connections...
Questions and tasks: 1) What stages of cognition does the author highlight? 2) What does the philosopher understand by such a feature of modern science as universality? 3) How does the text treat the problem of integration and differentiation of scientific knowledge? 4) How does the author explain the impossibility of complete unification of the sciences?

Social cognition

Cognition there is a process of knowledge formation. Already ancient Greek philosophers discovered contradictions in this process.

According to the ancient Greeks, these contradictions are associated with the dual origin of knowledge. One source of knowledge is feelings and sensations. Another source is the mind. From this they concluded that knowledge cannot be one with that of which it is knowledge: there is an object of knowledge, there is a subject of knowledge, and there is the subject’s knowledge of the object, which is obtained with the help of feelings or reason.

Therefore, two trends emerged among sensualists.

One - materialistic(those who believed that the source of sensations is the external material world (Locke).

Other subjective-idealistic(those who considered their own sensations not related to matter to be the source of knowledge (Berkeley).

Thus, in philosophy, an idea was formed of the process of cognition as the formation by the subject of knowledge about an object, which can be realized with the help of feeling and reason.

Stages (phases) of scientific knowledge.

Stage 1 - knowledge of properties and an object as a set of these properties. It is made up of experience, observations (including instrumental ones), contemplation of an object, through interaction with it. Contemplation is carried out through the interaction of the subject with it, through the display (change) by the properties of the object of the properties of the subject, and in fact, through the mutual change of their commensurate properties (the relativity of the object and the subject). Through direct interaction or through the mediation of toolkit objects, indirect interaction

In this approach, at this stage, the relativity of contemplation, observation, experience, the relativity of display and change is clarified. As a result of this, only some properties of the object are revealed that are commensurate with the properties of the subject, and through interaction (comparison) the relative comparative values of these properties are clarified. An object looms knowledge - a relative whole, a finite set of relative properties determined using methods of cognition (in comparison with the properties of the subject of cognition).

Stage 2 - application of methods of cognition of an object and general scientific principles previously known. By analyzing the totality of certain properties and their values, the correct methods are selected and applied knowledge changes in an object from changes in its properties. This is the stage of applying previously learned methodologies knowledge (means of mathematics, physics, logic, some models, analysis, everyday experience, etc.).

The goal of the 2nd stage, the goal of applying methods of cognition, is to clarify the cause-and-effect dependence of changes in an object (relative whole) on changes in its properties. The logical structure of this stage is called theory . In a way knowledge , the actual modeling (representation) of the object is carried out and the cause-and-effect relationships are clarified (clarified), the variability of the whole from changes in its individual properties is clarified. This shows relativity of cognition of an object to its methodknowledge.

This is the stage knowledge relative truth, the relative essence of an object, conditioned by the relativity and finitude of the properties of the subject, the finitude and relativity of the properties of methods knowledge . For this reason and The essence (truth), depending on the method of cognition, appears relative.

Stage 3 - formulation of the concept. Based on the analysis of assimilation (processing) of the results of the previous stages, formulation of a scientific concept object knowledge - as a finite relative set of properties defined in appropriate ways knowledge , and object dependency knowledge , as a relative whole, from changes in these properties. With this approach, the concept must characterize the relative nature and relative magnitude of the cognized object and be structurally defined. This concept becomes the basis for further knowledge . Thus, a concept formulated according to a unified methodology becomes a scientific “building block” in the further knowledge of the universe.

Thus, in the processknowledge an expanding pyramid of concepts of the knowable part of nature is built, in which each concept is relatively primitive, relative to subsequent derived concepts. The concept becomes the final set of relative properties and the cause-and-effect dependence of the object-concept on these properties, defined using a specific method of cognition. All stages of cognition are carried out on the basis of scientifically substantiated principles of correct cognition and basic concepts that were previously known.

http://knowledge.allbest.ru/philosophy/2c0a65625b2bc78b4d53b88521306c27_0.html

Nizhnikov S.A. Course of lectures: History of philosophy / S.A. Nizhnikov. – M.: Exam, 2007. – 384 p.

Philosophy. Textbook for universities / Under general. ed. V.V. Mironova. - M.: Norma, 2005. - 928 p.

Irrational cognition

Irrationalism in a broad sense, it is customary to call those philosophical teachings that limit or deny the decisive role of reason in knowledge, highlighting other types of human abilities - instinct, intuition, direct contemplation, insight, imagination, feelings, etc. Irrational is a philosophical concept that expresses something beyond the control of reason, beyond rational comprehension, and incommensurable with the capabilities of reason.

Within the framework of classical rationalism, the idea of a special ability of intellectual activity, called intellectual intuition, arose. Thanks to intellectual intuition, thinking, bypassing experience, directly comprehends the essence of things. To the characteristic features intellectual intuition The following can be included:

intuitive cognition as immediate, according to the rationalism of the 17th century, must differ from rational cognition, based on logical definitions, syllogisms and evidence, that is, the specificity of intuitive cognition is independent of inference and evidence;

intuition is one of the types of intellectual knowledge, but, it is important to note, its highest type.

The doctrine of the determining role in human cognition of such an irrational ability as intuition was developed in intuitionism, which received its greatest development in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Intuitionists argued that neither experience nor reason is sufficient for knowledge. To comprehend life, which was recognized as the only reality, a special form of knowledge is necessary, which is intuition. But this is no longer the intellectual intuition that underlay knowledge among rationalists, for example, Descartes, but intuition, the activity of which is opposite to the activity of reason. For example, A. Bergson believed that intuition and intellect are two opposite directions in the work of consciousness. According to intuitionism, the mind with its logic is capable of describing dead nature in physics, but it is completely helpless in knowing living human reality, comprehended only with the help of intuition. Intuition here it is considered as a form of direct knowledge that comprehends reality, bypassing the testimony of the senses and the mind. Intuition is a form of direct experience of reality. Since the only given thing for us is life, and it is, first of all, experienced by us and not known, then we, according to Bergson, are able to perceive it directly. The path of this direct comprehension is intuition. Unlike rational, intellectual comprehension, intuition, according to Bergson, is a simple act and gives us not relative and one-sided knowledge, but absolute. Intuition is a type of intellectual activity with the help of which you can move inside an object in order to merge with it and comprehend what is unique and inexpressible in it. In modern philosophy, it is generally accepted that in the real process of thinking, intuition is closely related to logical processes, although it is recognized that its mechanisms differ significantly from the principles and procedures of logic and are characterized by peculiar ways of processing and evaluating information, which are still extremely poorly studied. Intuition not an autonomous way of cognition, it is associated with rational elements, but at the same time, individual links in the chain remain at the level of the unconscious.

Another irrational element in cognition, close to intuition, is insight. Insight(from the English insight - insight, understanding) is interpreted as an act of directly achieving the truth, “insight”, as a sudden understanding, “grasping” the relationships and structure of a problem situation. Scientific insight was discovered by the representative of Gestalt psychology W. Köhler in 1917 in a study of problem solving by apes. Subsequently, in Gestalt psychology, the concept of insight is used to describe that type of human thinking in which the solution to a problem arises not as a result of the perception of individual parts, but through mental comprehension of the whole. Thus, in the process of solving a complex problem, the situation is restructured, a new vision of the problem is found, the conditions of the problem begin to be seen and understood differently. Finding a new understanding occurs suddenly for consciousness and is accompanied by a characteristic emotional experience, which is called the aha experience. The mechanism of insight, in contrast to rational cognition, is not based on general logical techniques and methods, such as analysis, synthesis, abstraction, induction, etc., but on an instantaneous comprehension of a solution to a problem.

The process of cognition, as well as the process of creativity, is impossible without the participation of imagination. Imagination is a specific form of spiritual activity of the subject in cognition and creativity, associated with the reproduction of past experience (reproductive imagination) and the constructive and creative creation of a new visual or visual-conceptual image, situation, possible future (productive imagination). Imagination depends not only on immediate impressions, but also on the content of memory. Imagination cannot be strictly opposed to thinking and reason, since imagination in many cases is subject to the logic of thinking. But at the same time, imagination is not a rational way of comprehending reality, since it can acquire relative independence and proceed according to its own “logic,” going beyond the usual norms of thinking. Imagination acts bypassing the standards of logic of thinking and goes beyond the immediate given. Imagination helps to understand the world by creating hypotheses, model representations, and ideas for experiments. Irrational elements in the process of cognition are not limited to the above. The irrational elements of cognition should also include the emotional sphere, which influences the process of cognition, magical practices, meditation practices in Eastern religions and esotericism, etc.

Conclusion

So, cognition is a unity of not only the rational and sensory aspects, but also includes various irrational elements associated with the role of the unconscious in the human psyche and suggesting that their connection with the rational component of cognitive activity is not clearly identified.

http://oitzi.ru/Materials.aspx?doc_id=38&id=742

Casting a glance at world history, we discover three stages of knowledge: firstly, rationalization in general, which in one form or another is a universal human property, appears with man as such; ...secondly, the formation of logically and methodically conscious science - Greek science and, in parallel, the beginnings of scientific knowledge in China and India; thirdly, the emergence of modern science, growing from the end of the Middle Ages, decisively establishing itself from the 17th century. and unfolding in all its breadth since the 19th century. This science has been making European culture - at least since the 17th century. - different from the culture of all other countries... Science has three necessary characteristics: cognitive methods, reliability and general validity... Modern science universal according to your spirit. There is no area that could isolate itself from it for a long time. Everything that happens in the world is subject to observation, consideration, research - natural phenomena, actions or statements of people, their creations and destinies. Religion and all authorities also become the object of study. And not only reality, but also all mental possibilities become the object of study... Modern science, addressed to the individual, strives to reveal its comprehensive connections... The idea of interconnectedness of all sciences gives rise to dissatisfaction with individual knowledge. Modern science is not only universal, but strives for such a unification of sciences, which is never achievable. Each science is defined by a method and a subject. Each is a perspective of the vision of the world, none comprehends the world as such, each covers a segment of reality, but not reality - perhaps one side of reality, but not reality as a whole, however, each of them enters into a world that is limitless, but all Still one in the kaleidoscope of connections... Questions and tasks: 1) What stages of cognition does the author highlight? 2) What does the philosopher understand by such a feature of modern science as universality? 3) How does the text treat the problem of integration and differentiation of scientific knowledge? 4) How does the author explain the impossibility of complete unification of the sciences?

- Modern Science

I. A fundamentally new factor: science and technology. Second part. Present and Future The holistic concept of philosophy of history that we are trying to give is aimed at illuminating our own situation within the framework of world history. The task of the historical concept is... [read more]

- Forms of motion of matter and modern science.

According to the hierarchy of forms of matter, there are qualitatively diverse forms of its movement. The idea of the forms of motion of matter and their interrelation was put forward by F. Engels. He based the classification of forms of motion of matter on the following principles: 1) forms of motion are correlated... [read more]

- Modern science about the origin of the state.

The question of the origin of the state has a relevant meaning for the theory of state and law, since establishing the reasons for its emergence helps to understand the need for the existence of the state over a long historical time and its future fate. ... [read more]

- MODERN SCIENCE AND R&D

[read more]

- MODERN SCIENCE AND R&D

Scientific picture of the world. The NCM is formed as a result of the synthesis of knowledge obtained in various sciences and contains general ideas about the world developed at the corresponding stages of the historical development of science. NCM includes ideas about nature and life... [read more]

- Modern science about the structure of matter

Levels of organization of inanimate nature The structure of matter at the biological and social levels The basis of modern scientific ideas about the structure of matter is the idea of its complex systemic organization. Any object of the material world can be considered in... [read more]

- Modern science about the structure of matter page 9

Since the second third of the 19th century, capitalism has experienced crises of overproduction again and again. The market turned out to be overflowing with useful goods, which, however, were not consumed, since the main, working mass of the population could not purchase them due to their low... [read more]

- Modern science about the structure of matter page 8

As we see, philosophy, no matter what positions it adheres to, not only does not remove the question of the meaning of human life, death and immortality, but, on the contrary, allows it to be raised in the most acute, even dramatic form, thereby fully revealing it. ..

Open Library - an open library of educational information. What stages can be roughly distinguished in modern scientific activity? Scientific knowledge of nature and society

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Than the work of Pinocchio

Marinated pork in the oven with potatoes

Salad with fried chanterelles Salad with pickled chanterelle mushrooms

Categories

Latest articles

Salad with canned tuna and corn Tuna salad corn pickled cucumber

Lenten dumplings – cook at least every day!

Lazy cutlets "Tepsi Kebabi" (Turkish cuisine)

How to straighten your legs with exercises

How to check if an egg is rotten?

Is it possible to read character from a man's face?

Kefir okroshka diet: weekly menu with recipes Kefir okroshka diet

The best varieties of coffee beans, ground, instant: names, list, rating

Origin of the expression "bash to bash"

Advertising

Open Library - an open library of educational information. What stages can be roughly distinguished in modern scientific activity? Scientific knowledge of nature and society

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

You might be interested:

Categories

Latest articles

Advertising