The question of knowledge, its possibility, content and boundaries is one of the most difficult problems that philosophy deals with, and moreover, it also has the peculiarity that the more you delve into it, the more you begin to realize its importance, barely noticed by the first philosophers , V new philosophy he came to the fore. As it became clear from the historical development of philosophy itself, first of all it is necessary to clearly pose and in one way or another resolve the question of knowledge, so that it then becomes possible to begin to resolve other philosophical questions. There is no new philosophical doctrine that could count on its further development in the future, it is now impossible without a theory of knowledge. In the newest scientific philosophy of our time, the theory of knowledge is required as a necessary introduction to philosophy.
No matter how much the opinions of philosophers may differ regarding the possibility of the origin and development of knowledge, everyone is forced to admit that without logical thinking development of cognition is impossible . Even absolute doubt, which does not allow any knowledge of the truth, at least tries to support this negative result with logical arguments. All philosophers are no less unanimous that thinking alone is not enough for the fact of knowledge to arise, but that thinking must have some kind of content, which is given to him in one way or another. Even he who ascribes to thinking the power to develop all knowledge from a small number of initial ideas must presuppose at least this beginning to the data.
Only with the question of how This initial content is given to thinking, and a dispute begins between different directions. Since thinking consists only of establishing connections between various parts heterogeneous content of our external and internal experience, then empiricism recognizes only the source of all knowledge experience .
one of the most important representatives empirical philosophy
But since, on the other hand, all knowledge presupposes reliability, and the latter, in turn, subsumes what is known under known obvious provisions, then, in contrast to empiricism, rationalism asserts that real knowledge can be developed by thinking only from such content, which, independent of any experience, is as original and obvious as logical thinking itself.
Rene Descartes , founder of modern European rationalism
The claims of both directions are trying to refute skepticism , indicating that experience, due to the deception of the senses and the continuous change of phenomena, is devoid of reliability, and as for logical thinking, the latter can be conveniently used to prove positions that contradict each other. These three philosophical trends are finally joined by criticism , who, as an impartial judge, tries to give each of the mentioned areas its due. Empiricism, in his opinion, is right to the extent that it reduces the content of knowledge to experience, rationalism - to the extent that it recognizes unconditional certainty only in those components of knowledge that cannot be deduced from experience, and even skepticism is allowed by it, if only the latter is limited to a negative attitude towards all attempts at dogmatic statements on the part of rationalist or empiricist philosophers.
- founder of criticism in the theory of knowledge
The main question of the theory of knowledge is the question of the relationship that exists between thought and reality, between the knowing being and the cognized object, or, as philosophers put it, between the subject and the object. The theory of knowledge, from which modern scientific philosophy proceeds, is based on the position of the inextricable connection that exists between subject and object. Our representations are originally objects themselves. In the original “representation-object” one can find neither the concept of an object nor the concept of a thinking subject as such, but it is simultaneously both, both thought and thinking. Only theoretical reflection destroys this unity and separates the idea from the object. But once this unity is broken, once cognition has moved from a naive form, which does not yet know the difference between representation and object, to that reflective form of cognition, which the object of representation opposes to the representation itself, a return to naive understanding is no longer possible. However, it is possible to set two requirements for reflection, which should serve as the basis for all considerations about the relationship of the thinking subject to the thought object. The first requirement is that we must always keep in mind that the distinction of concepts carried out by abstract thinking only then proves the separation of the objects of these concepts themselves if it is really possible to show the products of abstract distinction as separated in direct perception. The second requirement is to always be clearly aware motives, encouraging abstract thinking to make its distinctions, and to borrow exclusively from these motives the points of view according to which we judge the real meaning of the distinctions made. This last requirement shows us the path that should be followed when discussing the problem of knowledge in philosophy. First of all, the question arises about psychological motives , encouraging abstract thinking to divide the initial “representation-object” into the represented object and the representing subject, and then, as a second task, the question of logical value these motives and about the consequences that, according to this, can be deduced from them for our understanding of reality.
Thus, the subject from which must proceed general philosophical theory knowledge , is a “representation-object” with all the properties that it immediately possesses, therefore also especially with the property of being a real object. Trying to follow correct sequence motives arising in thinking and their effect on the development of concepts, we will have to, depending on the type and scope of the intellectual functions used, distinguish between certain stages of knowledge , which can be briefly denoted as perceptive , rational and rational knowledge . The area of the first should include all those transformations to which the original “representation-objects” are subjected, if only these transformations are carried out within ordinary processes of perception, without auxiliary means and methods of scientific concept formation. TO rational knowledge , on the contrary, all those improvements and additions are included that are introduced into the content and connection of ideas through methodological logical analysis. Finally, under the name rational knowledge one should understand all the efforts of thinking to connect the individual results achieved by rational knowledge into a single whole.
But, while distinguishing these different stages of cognition in this way, one must beware of understanding them as specifically different forms of cognition, sharply separated in reality. The same integral spiritual activity operates at all these levels of cognition, and in accordance with this, the activities of perception and understanding, reason and reason constantly transform into each other. One could also say to characterize these different stages of cognition that perceptive cognition belongs to practical life , rational cognition – areas individual sciences , and reasonable - philosophy. But here again it should be remembered that such differences have a conditional meaning. Science is based on the experiences of practical life, and the acquisitions of science itself gradually become a solid property of practical life, which the latter constantly uses when making judgments about certain objects. Philosophy is sometimes forced to intervene in the work of individual sciences in order to, having supplemented and corrected where necessary, continue it further from its more general point of view, and as for individual sciences, the latter parts are forced to philosophize against their will if they do not want to lose the best share of their results. That is why, as soon as this need for mutual complementation and assistance is recognized, there can be no question of lasting disagreement between philosophy and science, just as between science and practical life.
Types (methods) of knowledge
“There are two main trunks of human knowledge, growing, perhaps, from one common, but unknown to us root, namely sensibility and reason: through sensibility, objects are given to us, but through reason they are thought.” I. Kant
Knowledge is not limited to the sphere of science; each form of social consciousness: science, philosophy, mythology, politics, religion, etc. has its own specific forms of knowledge, but unlike all the diverse forms of knowledge, scientific knowledge is the process of obtaining objective, true knowledge aimed at reflecting the patterns of reality. Scientific knowledge has a threefold task and is associated with the description, explanation and prediction of processes and phenomena of reality.
There are also forms of knowledge that have a conceptual, symbolic or artistic-figurative basis. In the history of culture, diverse forms of knowledge that differ from the classical scientific model and standard are classified as extra-scientific knowledge: parascientific, pseudoscientific, quasi-scientific, anti-scientific, pseudoscientific, everyday practical, personal, “folk science”. Since the diverse set of non-rational knowledge does not lend itself to strict and exhaustive classification, there is a division of the corresponding cognitive technologies into three types: paranormal knowledge, pseudoscience and deviant science.
The initial structure of Cognition is represented by the subject-object relationship, where the question of the possibility of adequate reproduction by the subject essential characteristics object (the problem of truth) is central theme epistemology (theory of Knowledge). Depending on the solution to this issue, philosophy distinguishes the positions of cognitive optimism, skepticism and agnosticism.
Plato
In Book VI of the Republic, Plato divides everything accessible to knowledge into two types: comprehended by sensation and cognizable by the mind. The relationship between the spheres of the sensed and the intelligible also determines the relationship between different cognitive abilities: sensations allow us to understand (albeit unreliably) the world of things, reason allows us to see the truth.
What is felt is again divided into two types - the objects themselves and their shadows and images. Faith (πίστις) correlates with the first kind, and likeness (εἰκασία) with the second. By faith we mean the ability to have direct experience. Taken together, these abilities constitute opinion (δόξα). Opinion is not knowledge in the true sense of the word, since it concerns changeable objects, as well as their images. The sphere of the intelligible is also divided into two types - these are the ideas of things and their intelligible similarities. Ideas for their knowledge do not need any prerequisites, representing eternal and unchanging entities accessible only to reason (νόησις). The second type includes mathematical objects. According to Plato's thought, mathematicians only “dream” existence, since they use inferential concepts that require a system of axioms that are accepted without proof. The ability to produce such concepts is understanding (διάνοια). Reason and understanding together constitute thinking, and only it is capable of cognizing the essence. Plato introduces the following proportion: as essence is related to becoming, so thinking is related to opinion; and in the same way knowledge relates to faith and reasoning relates to likeness.
Particularly famous in the theory of knowledge is Plato’s allegory “Myth of the Cave” (or “Parable of the Cave”).
Epicureans
Philo of Alexandria
Types of cognition
There are several types of cognition:- mythological
- religious
The goal of religious knowledge in monotheism is not the creation or clarification of a system of ideas about God, but the salvation of man, for whom the discovery of the existence of God at the same time turns out to be an act of self-discovery, self-knowledge and forms in his consciousness the demand for moral renewal. In the New Testament, the method of religious knowledge is formulated by Christ Himself in the “beatitudes”: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matt. 5:8)
- philosophical
In the process of philosophical cognition, the subject strives not only to understand the existence and place of man in it, but also to show what they should be, that is, he strives to create ideal, the content of which will be determined by the philosophical postulates chosen by the philosopher.
- sensual
- scientific (rational)
see also
Links
- Kokhanovsky V.P. et al. Fundamentals of the philosophy of science. M.: Phoenix, 2007. 608 with ISBN 978-5-222-11009-6
- Levichev O. F. Logical-epistemological mechanism of cognition of universal laws in the process of formation of the teacher’s synthetic consciousness
- For the theory of knowledge, see the Brockhaus and Efron dictionary or the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
See what “Knowledge (philosophy)” is in other dictionaries:
The science of the most general theoretical and worldview. problems of jurisprudence and state science. From legal sciences that study specific legal systems, differs in that it poses and solves these problems in philosophy. level. F. p.... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
Cognition, acquisition or the result of acquiring knowledge: Cognition (philosophy) is a set of procedures and methods for acquiring knowledge about the phenomena and patterns of the objective world. Cognition (in psychology) (cognition) is a term meaning in ... ... Wikipedia
Philosophy- Philosophy ♦ Philosophie A theoretical (but not scientific) activity where the object of study is everything, the method is reason, the goal is wisdom. Philosophy teaches us to think better, and therefore live better. This is not science or even... Sponville's Philosophical Dictionary
There is a Wikibook on the topic “Philosophy of Science” Philosophy of Science is a branch of philosophy that studies the concept, boundaries and ... Wikipedia
- (from the Greek phileo love, sophia wisdom, philosophia love of wisdom) a special form of social consciousness and knowledge of the world, developing a system of knowledge about the fundamental principles and foundations of human existence, about the most general essential... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
A category that describes the process of obtaining any knowledge by repeating ideal plans for activity and communication, creating sign-symbolic systems that mediate a person’s interaction with the world and other people. Philosophy P.'s concepts are extremely... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
In the very general meaning Philosopher thoughts about religion. With this understanding of F.r. represented by many various directions, works, judgments expressed over more than two thousand years of philosophy. Their content and degree of novelty can be... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
cognition- COGNITION is a philosophical category that describes the process of constructing ideal plans for activity and communication, creating sign-symbolic systems that mediate a person’s interaction with the world and other people in the synthesis of various... ... Encyclopedia of Epistemology and Philosophy of Science
The teachings of the Russian philosopher Nikolai Fedorov. During his lifetime, N. F. Fedorov, avoiding fame and not wanting to receive money for his works, published his articles under pseudonyms or did not publish them at all, giving them to be read in handwritten form. Title... ...Wikipedia
- 'Philosophy and the mirror of nature' (1979) by Rorty. The book is directed against the paradigm of the feasibility of developing a correct ‘theory of knowledge’ and, as a consequence, against philosophy, considered as different from... ... History of Philosophy: Encyclopedia
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.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
Federal state budget educational institution higher professional education
"Komsomolsk-on-Amur State Technical University"
in the discipline "Philosophy"
Philosophy of knowledge of the world
Introduction
2. Subject and object of knowledge
Conclusion
Introduction
All people by nature strive for knowledge. Everything that extends before us and happens within us is known through our sense impressions and reflection, experience and theory. Sensations, perceptions, ideas and thinking, the degree of their adequacy to what is known, the delimitation of true knowledge from illusory, truth from error and lies - all this has been carefully studied since ancient times in the context of various problems of philosophy, but above all such a section as theory knowledge.
The theory of knowledge and “general metaphysics”, which examines the problems of being and consciousness, form the basis of all philosophy. More specialized sections devoted to issues of social philosophy, aesthetics, ethics, etc. are already based on them. The theory of knowledge is a general theory that explains the very nature of human cognitive activity, no matter in what field of science, art or everyday practice it is carried out.
Humanity has always strived to acquire new knowledge. Mastery of the secrets of existence is an expression of the highest aspirations of the creative activity of the mind, which constitutes the pride of man and humanity. Over the millennia of its development, it has gone through a long and thorny path knowledge from primitive and limited to ever deeper and more comprehensive penetration into the essence of the surrounding world. On this path, an innumerable number of facts, properties and laws of nature were discovered, public life and the man himself, scientific pictures of the world replaced one another. The development of scientific knowledge occurred simultaneously with the development of production, with the flowering of the arts, artistic creativity. Knowledge forms a very complex system, which acts in the form of social memory, its wealth is transmitted from generation to generation, from people to people through the mechanism of social heredity and culture.
1. Cognition as a subject philosophical analysis
The human mind, rising along the spiral of knowledge, at each new turn again and again tries to answer the question: how is knowledge possible, is the world knowable in principle? This is not a simple question. In fact, the Universe is infinite, but man is finite, and within the boundaries of his finite experience it is impossible to know what is infinite. This question has haunted philosophical thought in a variety of forms.
In an attempt to answer it, three main lines can be identified: optimism, skepticism and agnosticism. Optimists affirm the fundamental knowability of the world; agnostics, on the contrary, deny it. An example of an optimistic view of knowledge is the position of G. Hegel, expressed in the words: “The hidden and initially closed essence of the universe has no force that could resist the daring of knowledge; she must open up to him, show him her riches and her depths and let him enjoy them.”
However, isolating these three lines seems to be a serious simplification. Everything is much more complicated. After all, if agnostics deny the knowability of the world, then this is not a bare, unfounded denial. It is truly impossible to answer many of the questions they point out. The main problem that leads to agnosticism is the following: in the process of cognition, an object is inevitably refracted through the prism of our senses and thinking. We receive information about him only in the form in which it acquired as a result of such refraction. What objects really are, we do not know and cannot know. The world stretches out before us, beginningless and infinite, and we approach it with our formulas, diagrams, models, concepts and categories, trying to catch its eternity and infinity in the “net” of our ideas. And no matter how cleverly we tie the “knots” of concepts, categories and theories, is it not arrogant to pretend to comprehend the essence of the universe in this way? It turns out that we are closed in the world of our ways of knowing and are unable to say something reliable about the world as it exists on its own - this is the conclusion to which the logic of this reasoning inevitably leads under certain epistemological assumptions.
However, the practical conclusion of agnosticism is refuted at every step by the development of science and knowledge. Thus, the founder of positivism, O. Comte, once declared that humanity was not destined to know the chemical composition of the Sun. But before the ink had time to dry on these skeptical words, the composition of the Sun was determined using spectral analysis. Some representatives of science of the 19th century. confidently considered atoms to be nothing more than a mental function, although convenient for theoretical constructions, but not a real entity. But the hour struck, and E. Rutherford, entering the laboratory, could exclaim: “Now I know what an atom looks like!”, and half a century later the firmly established spatial chemical structure of genes was revealed. “The great miracle in the progress of science,” writes L. de Broglie, “is that a correspondence between our thought and reality opens up before us, a certain opportunity to sense, with the help of the resources of our mind and the rules of our mind, the deep connections that exist between phenomena.”
The essence of Kantian agnosticism, as is commonly believed, is the following: what a thing is for us (phenomenon) and what it represents in itself (noumenon) are fundamentally different. And no matter how much we penetrate into the depths of phenomena, our knowledge will still differ from things as they are in themselves. This division of the world into knowable “phenomena” and unknowable “things in themselves” excludes the possibility of comprehending the essence of things. What objects actually are, we do not know and cannot know: it is impossible to compare what is in consciousness with what lies beyond it, transcendental to it. After all, a person can only compare what he knows with what he somehow knows.
The external world, according to this idea, like a wanderer, knocks on the temple of the mind, excites it to activity, while remaining at the same time under the cover of the unknown: after all, it cannot, in fact, enter this temple without undergoing deformation upon entry. And the mind is forced to only guess what kind of wanderer this is, and comes up with an image of him, which turns out to be something centaur-like: something from the wanderer himself, and something from our human nature. From this consideration it is clear that the source of agnosticism is inevitably the hypothesis of the transcendence of knowledge.
So, firstly, Kant here raised the question of the fundamental limitations of human experience, and secondly, he recognized that reality always goes beyond the limits of any knowledge: in this sense, it is “more cunning” than any theories and infinitely richer than them. In addition, he stated that the world is always known only in the forms of its given to man. It was the latter circumstance that allowed him to assert that a thing is known in appearance, and not as it exists in itself. But this statement, being absolutized, tears out an impenetrable gap between consciousness and the world and leads to agnosticism, lowering, in the words of N.O. Lossky, the value of consciousness. We see that the root of agnosticism lies in the rupture of a certain coordinating connection between subject and object. Whatever the epistemological hypotheses about the nature of this connection, without its inclusion in the theory of knowledge, an agnostic conclusion is inevitable.
Skeptical thought goes back in part to the reasoning of ancient philosophers - Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, Antiphon, Thrasymachus, who were predecessors and contemporaries of the pinnacle thinkers of antiquity - Socrates and Plato.
The great Aristotle noted: “Whoever wants to know clearly must first doubt thoroughly.”5 Ancient philosophers, as we know, tried to live in accordance with their teachings. The epistemological attitude of skeptics - epoche (abstinence from judgment) - corresponds in behavior to the ideal of ataraxia, i.e. deep calm and equanimity.
Agnosticism is an exaggerated form of skepticism. Skepticism, while recognizing the fundamental possibility of knowledge, expresses doubt about the reliability of knowledge. As a rule, skepticism blooms wildly during the period (or on the eve) of a paradigm shift, a change in values, social systems, etc., when something previously considered true turns out to be false and untenable in the light of new data from science and practice. The psychology of skepticism is such that it immediately begins to trample not only what has become obsolete, but at the same time everything new and emerging. The basis of this psychology is not the research thirst for innovation and faith in the power of the human mind, but the habit of “cozy” principles, once accepted on faith. Bitterly regretting that some scientists actually have such a psychology, K.E. Tsiolkovsky said: they laugh and deny a lot, and it’s easy and pleasant. But what a shame lies on humanity, which strangles the great, beats and destroys what later turns out to be beneficial for itself. When will humanity finally get rid of this disastrous vice...
For a truly deep thinker, philosophical doubt takes the form of humility before the infinity and inaccessibility of existence. Humanity has learned a lot. But knowledge also reveals to us the abyss of our ignorance. Reality goes beyond any knowledge. A bad form of philosophical thinking is the tendency to make categorical and final judgments. There is so much mystery in the world that obliges us to be modest and, within reasonable limits, cautious in our judgments. A true scientist knows too much to share exorbitant optimism; he looks at “over-optimists” with the same shade of sadness with which adults look at children’s games. We know for certain only relatively simple things. With full consciousness of the modesty befitting deep minds, I. Newton said well: “I don’t know what I may seem to the world, but to myself I seem only like a boy playing on the seashore, amusing myself by occasionally finding a more colorful pebble, than usual, or a red shell, while the great ocean of truth lies unexplored before me.”
Knowledge increases sorrow, says Ecclesiastes. The human mind, according to Rabindranath Tagore, is like a lamp: than brighter light, the thicker the shadow of doubt. According to legend, once Zeno, in response to a question why he doubted everything, drew two unequal circles and said: “This big circle- my knowledge, that fellow is yours. Everything outside the circle is the realm of the unknown. You see that the limit of contact between my knowledge and the unknown is much greater. That’s why I doubt my knowledge more than you.”
F. Schlegel said this: “The more they know, the more they have to study. Along with knowledge, our knowledge grows evenly, or rather, our knowledge of the size of the not yet known.”
As for the relationship of materialism to the problem of the cognizability of the world, the main principle of the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism is the principle of active reflection. Reflection is the activity of the human brain interacting with the outside world and responding to its influences. The essence of reflection is that what is felt, perceived, and thought is not the sensations, perceptions, and ideas themselves, but objects, their properties, connections, relationships that exist outside and independently of the consciousness of the subject. The thesis: “knowledge reflects the object” means that the subject of knowledge creates such forms of mental activity that are ultimately determined by the nature, properties, and laws of the object itself (and not the properties of the consciousness of the knowing subject). Therefore, the content of knowledge is objective. But the reproduction of the features of the reflected object in the images of consciousness occurs in accordance with the features of the reflecting system. And this means that the images of consciousness, being objective in content, are subjective in form, i.e. carry certain characteristics of the subject.
2 Subject and object of knowledge
Cognition presupposes a bifurcation of the world into an object and a subject. Whatever issues a person solves in his life, theoretical or practical, material or spiritual, personal or social, he, according to I.A. Ilyin, “must always take into account reality, the objective circumstances and laws given to him.” True, he may not take them into account, but by doing this he ensures, sooner or later, failure in life, and perhaps a whole stream of suffering and troubles. So consciousness is characterized by constant going beyond itself: it is constantly looking for an object, and without this it cannot live.
The world exists for us only in the aspect of its being given to the knowing subject. The concepts “subject” and “object” are correlative. When we say “subject,” we ask the question: the subject of what—cognition? actions? grades? When we say “object,” we also ask ourselves: the object of what—cognition? grades? actions?
The subject is a complex hierarchy, the foundation of which is the entire social whole. Ultimately, the ultimate producer of knowledge and wisdom is all of humanity. In its historical development, smaller communities stand out, which are individual peoples. Each nation, producing norms, ideas and values fixed in its culture, also acts as a special subject of cognitive activity. Bit by bit, from century to century, he accumulates information about natural phenomena, animals or, for example, the healing properties of plants, properties various materials, about morals and customs various peoples. In society, historically there are groups of individuals whose special purpose and occupation is the production of knowledge that has a special vital value. Such, in particular, is scientific knowledge, the subject of which is the community of scientists. In this community, individuals stand out whose abilities, talent and genius determine their particularly high cognitive achievements. History preserves the names of these people as symbols of outstanding milestones in the evolution of scientific ideas.
The true subject of knowledge is never only epistemological: it is a living person with his passions, interests, character traits, temperament, intelligence or stupidity, talent or mediocrity, strong will or lack of will. If the subject of knowledge is the scientific community, then it has its own characteristics: interpersonal relationships, dependencies, contradictions, as well as common goals, unity of will and actions, etc. But often by the subject of knowledge they still mean a certain impersonal logical clot of intellectual activity.
The subject and his cognitive activity can be adequately understood only in their specific historical context. Scientific knowledge presupposes not only a conscious attitude of the subject to the object, but also to himself, to his activity, i.e. awareness of the conditions, techniques, norms and methods of research activity, taking into account traditions, etc.
A fragment of being that finds itself in the focus of a searching thought constitutes an object of cognition and becomes, in a certain sense, the “property” of the subject, having entered into a subject-object relationship with it. In a word, the object in its relation to the subject is no longer just reality, but to one degree or another a cognized reality, i.e. one that has become a fact of consciousness - consciousness, socially determined in its cognitive aspirations, and in this sense, the object of knowledge becomes already a fact of society. From the point of view of cognitive activity, the subject does not exist without an object, and the object does not exist without a subject.
In modern epistemology, it is customary to distinguish between the object and the subject of knowledge. By object of knowledge we mean real fragments of existence that are being studied. The object of knowledge is the specific aspects to which the edge of the seeking thought is directed. Thus, a person is the object of study of many sciences - biology, medicine, psychology, sociology, philosophy, etc. However, each of them “sees” a person from its own point of view: for example, psychology studies the psyche, the spiritual world of a person, his behavior, medicine - his ailments and methods of treating them, etc. Consequently, the subject of the study seems to include the current attitude of the researcher, i.e. it is formed from the perspective of the research problem.
It is known that man is a creator, a subject of history, and he himself creates the necessary conditions and prerequisites for his historical existence. Consequently, the object of socio-historical knowledge is not only cognized, but also created by people: before becoming an object, it must be previously created and shaped by them. In social cognition, a person thus deals with the results of his own activity, and therefore with himself as a practically active being. Being the subject of knowledge, he also turns out to be its object. In this sense, social cognition is the social self-awareness of a person, during which he discovers and explores his own historically created social essence.
knowledge philosophy optimism skepticism
Conclusion
Thus, in conclusion, the following conclusions can be drawn: Cognition is a socially organized form of human spiritual and creative activity, aimed at obtaining and developing reliable knowledge about reality.
Philosophers representing the position of epistemological optimism proceed from the thesis of the fundamental knowability of the world and believe that our knowledge adequately reflects the objects of the reality under study.
Skepticism does not deny the fundamental knowability of the world, but expresses doubt about the reliability of knowledge, or doubts the existence of the world itself.
Agnosticism denies (in whole or in part) the fundamental possibility of knowing the objective world, identifying its laws and comprehending objective truth. A representative of agnosticism was I. Kant, who argued that the world of objects is unknowable “things-in-themselves.”
Cognition is a complex and contradictory process, in which two stages (or levels) of cognition are traditionally distinguished: sensory and rational cognition. Both stages are closely related to each other and each of them has its own forms.
A person’s knowledge of the world around him begins with the help of his senses. By interacting with certain objects, we receive sensations, perceptions, ideas (forms of sensory knowledge). Sensation is a reflection of one property of an object using one of the five senses. Perception - complete image an object, reflection of its properties by all senses. A representation is a holistic image of an object, stored and reproduced in consciousness as needed.
Sensory cognition states how an event occurs, rational cognition answers the question of why it occurs this way. Rational cognition is based on the ability of logical thinking.
The process of cognition occurs in the form of interrelation and interaction between the knowing subject and the cognizable object.
The subject of cognition is a person who reflects the phenomena of reality in his consciousness. This subject is active: he sets goals, determines the means to achieve them, and adjusts these goals based on practice. The object of knowledge is an object, phenomenon, process of the material or spiritual world, towards which the cognitive activity of the subject is directed.
The types of knowledge are: everyday, scientific, practical and artistic.
List of sources used
1 Alekseev, F.V. Theory of knowledge and dialectics /F.V. Alekseev. - M.: Young Guard, 1978. - 268 p.
2 Asmus, G.A. Essays on the analysis of philosophical knowledge / G.A. Asmus. - M.: Young Guard, 1979 - 205 p.
3 Vavilov, S.I. Social cultural studies / S.I. Vavilov. - M.: volume 2, 1994. - 340 s.
4 Mamardashvili, M.K. How I understand philosophy / M.K. Mamardashvili. - M.: Book, 1990, 245 p.
5 Naletov, I.Z. Concreteness of philosophical knowledge / I.Z. Air raids. - M.: Book, 1986, 230 p.
Posted on Allbest.ru
...Similar documents
Sides of actually existing knowledge. Problems of the nature and possibilities of knowledge, the relationship of knowledge to reality. Philosophical positions on the problem of knowledge. Principles of skepticism and agnosticism. Basic forms of knowledge. The nature of the cognitive attitude.
presentation, added 09/26/2013
The problem of knowledge in philosophy. The concept and essence of everyday knowledge. Rationality of everyday cognition: common sense and reason. Scientific knowledge its structure and features. Methods and forms of scientific knowledge. Basic criteria of scientific knowledge.
abstract, added 06/15/2017
Epistemology as a branch of philosophy. A person’s cognitive attitude to the world as a subject of philosophical analysis. Dialectics of the sensory and rational levels of knowledge. The problem of truth in philosophy, its properties and criteria. The essence and meaning of intuition.
abstract, added 08/12/2015
Scientificity and diversity of philosophical vision of the world. Method in philosophy - dialectics or metaphysics? The relationship between philosophy and private (concrete) sciences. Philosophy as a source of knowledge, methods and boundaries of knowledge. The problem of the essence of scientific knowledge.
lecture, added 04/12/2009
Scientism and anti-scientism as types of worldview. The specific scientific and philosophical limitations of the hypotheses of the spontaneous generation of life. The problem of sources of knowledge, ways of knowing. The unity of sensory and rational knowledge. The problem of truth in philosophy.
test, added 03/11/2010
The main solutions to the problem of the knowability of the world: epistemological optimism and agnosticism. Epistemological concepts, their essence. Forms of sensory and rational knowledge. Types and criteria of truth. Specificity of scientific and religious types of knowledge.
presentation, added 01/08/2015
Origin in philosophy of the term "theory of knowledge". The process of human comprehension of the surrounding world, interaction with material systems. Properties and concepts of intuition, the role of thinking. Absolute and relative truth. Principles of scientific knowledge.
presentation, added 04/27/2015
The concept of the scientific method of understanding the world. History of the formation of the scientific method of cognition. The role of hypothesis in natural science. Collection and accumulation of empirical data carried out through observation and experiment.
abstract, added 10/17/2005
Thinking as a process of human cognitive activity. Approaches explaining the nature of consciousness. Methods and levels of scientific knowledge, features of rational and sensory knowledge. The variety of forms of human knowledge. The problem of truth in philosophy.
abstract, added 05/17/2010
Cognition as an object of philosophical analysis. The variety of ways to comprehend the world. The essence and structure of cognition. Dialectics of knowledge. Problems of truth. Thinking and language. Forms, laws and means of correct thinking.
Note that the theory of knowledge
The need for knowledge is one of the essential characteristics of a person. The entire history of mankind can be presented as an accelerating process of development, expansion, and refinement of knowledge - from technologies for processing stone tools and making fire to methods for obtaining and using information on a computer network. Modern stage development of society is usually seen as a transition from an industrial society (based on the production of goods) to a post-industrial, or information society (based on the production and distribution of knowledge). In an information society, the value of knowledge and ways of obtaining it is constantly increasing: every day there will be thousands of new books and computers in the world sites, and the share of digitized information amounts to terabytes. In such conditions, problems of cognition become increasingly important. IN to the greatest extent general questions of knowledge are developed by a section of philosophy, which is called epistemology (from the Greek gnosis - knowledge + logos - teaching), or theory of knowledge.
Cognition overall - creative human activity aimed at obtaining reliable knowledge about the world.
Often, knowledge requires a person to be convinced that it is right and to have special courage: many scientists went to prison and to the stake for their ideas. Based on all of the above, we come to the conclusion that knowledge has social nature: it is determined by the internal needs of society, goals, values, and beliefs of people.
Since cognition will be an activity, it has common features with other types of activity - work, learning, play, communication, etc. Therefore, in cognition it is possible to identify elements characteristic of any type of activity - need, motive, goal, means, result.
Cognitive need will be one of the most important human needs in the structure and is expressed in curiosity, the desire for understanding, spiritual quests, etc. The desire for the unknown, attempts to explain the incomprehensible are a necessary element of human life.
Motives of knowledge varied and traditionally practical: we try to learn something about an object in order to understand how it can be used or how to use it more effectively. But the motives can also be theoretical: a person often derives pleasure simply from solving a confusing intellectual problem or discovering something new.
The purpose of knowledge is obtaining reliable knowledge about the objects under study, phenomena, and the world as a whole. Ultimately, cognitive activity is aimed at achieving truth. Truth in the classical sense is the knowledge of the reality of reality itself.
Means of knowledge in science are called research methods. These include observation, measurement, experiment, comparison, analysis, etc. (they will be discussed in detail below)
Actions in the process of cognition are also diverse. For example, in scientific knowledge the following sequence of actions is accepted: putting forward a problem, setting a hypothesis, choosing methods, studying the problem, developing a theory.
Result of knowledge- ϶ᴛᴏ actual knowledge about the subject: its external and internal characteristics, properties, elements, connections, historical development, etc. Note that sometimes you can achieve a result without setting yourself conscious goals of searching for truth. Knowledge can be a by-product of other activities. The material was published on http://site
For example, ideas about properties different materials can be obtained in the process of work or play. Therefore, we can say that cognitive activity is intertwined with all other forms of activity. The material was published on http://site
Philosophy of knowledge
In the system of diverse forms of a person’s relationship to the world, an important place is occupied by knowledge or acquisition of knowledge about the world around a person, its nature and structure, patterns of development, as well as about the person himself and human society.
Cognition— ϶ᴛᴏ the process of a person acquiring new knowledge, the discovery of something previously unknown.
The effectiveness of cognition is achieved primarily by the active role of man in this process, which necessitates its philosophical consideration. In other words, we are talking about clarifying the prerequisites and circumstances, the conditions for moving towards the truth, mastering for this necessary methods and concepts. Philosophical problems knowledge constitutes the subject of the theory of knowledge, or epistemology. “ Epistemology" - word Greek origin(gnosis - knowledge and logos - word, teaching) Let us note that the theory of knowledge answers the questions of what knowledge is, what are its main forms, what are the patterns of transition from ignorance to knowledge, what is the subject and object of knowledge, what is the structure cognitive process, what truth is and what its criterion is, as well as many others. The term “theory of knowledge” was introduced into philosophy by the Scottish philosopher J. Ferrier in 1854. Improving the means of knowledge is an integral part of the history of human activity. The material was published on http://site
Many philosophers of the past turned to the development of questions of knowledge, and it is not by chance that this problem comes to the fore and becomes decisive in the development of philosophical thought. At first, knowledge appears in naive, sometimes very primitive forms, i.e. exists as ordinary knowledge. Its function has not lost its significance to this day. In the course of developing human practice, improving the skills and abilities of people to comprehend real world Science becomes the most important means of not only knowledge, but also material production. The principles of scientific knowledge will emerge, which formed the basis for the formation and organization of scientific thinking.
In this case, general philosophical principles are identified that apply both to the world as a whole and to the sphere of knowledge (the relationship of human knowledge to the world), the principles of special scientific thinking and the principles of special scientific theories. It is important to note that one of the most powerful factors transforming the life of society in the 20th century. became science (more about science as a form of social consciousness will be discussed in topic 5) This, in turn, turned it itself into an object of careful and scrupulous study. A wide front of research developed, in the center of which was the cognitive activity of man and society. The psychology of scientific creativity, the logic of science, the sociology of science, the history of science, and finally, science studies - this is an extremely short list of special disciplines that study various branches and forms of knowledge. Philosophy did not stand aside either, forming a broad sphere called the philosophy of science (including a number of subsections: philosophy of biology, philosophy of physics, philosophy of mathematics)
Subject and object of knowledge in philosophy
If we consider the process of scientific cognition as a whole as a systemic formation, then the subject and object of cognition should first be identified as its elements.
Subject of knowledge- ϶ᴛᴏ carrier of subject- practical activities and cognition, the source of cognitive activity aimed at the subject of knowledge.
The subject of cognition can be either a separate person (individual) or various social groups(society as a whole) In the case when the subject of cognition is an individual, then his self-awareness (experience of his own “I”) is determined by the entire world of culture created over the course of human history. Successful cognitive activity can be carried out provided that the subject plays an active role in the cognitive process.
Object of knowledge- ϶ᴛᴏ that which opposes the subject, towards which his practical and cognitive activity is directed.
The object is not identical objective reality, matter. The object of knowledge can be both material formations (chemical elements, physical bodies, living organisms) and social phenomena(society, relationships between people, their behavior and activities) Results of cognition (results of the experiment, scientific theories, science in general) can also become an object of knowledge. Based on all of the above, we come to the conclusion that objects become objects, things, phenomena, processes that exist independently of a person, which are mastered either in the course of practical activity or in the course of cognition. For this reason, it is clear that the concepts of object and subject are different from each other. An object is exclusively one side of an object, to which the attention of any science is directed.
In addition to the object in scientific knowledge, they often distinguish item- part of an object, which is specially isolated by cognitive means. For example, the object of all humanities will be man, but the cognitive means of psychology are aimed at spiritual world of man, archeology - on his origins, cultural studies - on culture, ethnography - on the morals and customs of mankind. Accordingly, the subject of these sciences is the spiritual world, origin, culture, etc.
The concept of an object is wider in scope than the concept of an object. Since the emergence of philosophy, the problem of the relationship of the subject to the object, as the relationship of the knower to the knowable, has always been in the center of attention of philosophers. The explanation of the reasons and nature of this relationship has undergone a complex evolution, going from the extreme opposition of subjective authenticity, self-awareness of the subject and the world of objective reality (Descartes), to the identification of a complex dialectical relationship between the subject and the object in the course of cognitive activity. The material was published on http://site
The subject himself and his activities can be correctly understood exclusively taking into account specific socio-cultural and historical conditions, taking into account the indirectness of the subject’s relations with other subjects. Scientific knowledge presupposes not only a conscious relationship of the subject to an object, but also a conscious relationship of the subject to himself (reflection)
From the concepts of “subject” and “object” the terms “subjective” and “objective” are derived.
Subjectively everything related to the subject, person, i.e. his will, desires, aspirations, preferences, feelings and emotions, etc. Based on all of the above, we come to the conclusion that subjectivity is a characteristic inner world a person or the personal impact that consciousness has on our relationship with the world. A subjective attitude towards something is traditionally a matter of taste and different people may be different. Subjectivity is more about opinions than knowledge, although personal knowledge will be subjective due to the fact that it belongs to a person’s consciousness, and not to the surrounding world.
Objectively everything that does not depend on consciousness, will, desires. For example, objective facts or their reflections will be the rotation of the Earth around the Sun, the confluence of the Volga into the Caspian Sea, the statements “Socrates is a man,” “F.M. Dostoevsky is a Russian writer,” etc.; they do not depend on our personal desires: the Earth will not stop its rotation, the Volga will not turn back, and Socrates will not become a Russian writer.
Of course, knowledge cannot be completely “purified” from a person. Cognition is influenced social relations, culture, era.
Codifier of content elements of the discipline “Philosophy”
Consciousness and cognition
main approaches to solving the problem of the origin of consciousness and its essence
structure of consciousness
connection between consciousness and language
relationship between consciousness and unconsciousness
the role of consciousness and the unconscious in human life and activity
The essence and nature of knowledge
main approaches to solving the problem of world cognition
essence and nature of knowledge
relationship between understanding and explanation
Structure of cognitive activity
levels and forms of knowledge
relationship between knowledge and faith
The problem of truth
basic concepts of truth
relationship between truth and error
1. P.V. Alekseev, A.V. Panin. Philosophy: textbook. M., 2004
Consciousness and cognition
The theory of knowledge (or epistemology, philosophy of knowledge) is a branch of philosophy in which the nature of knowledge and its possibilities, the relationship of knowledge to reality are studied, and the conditions for the reliability and truth of knowledge are identified.
The term “gnoseology” comes from the Greek words gnosis - knowledge and logos - concept, doctrine and means “the concept of knowledge”, “the study of knowledge”. And although the term “theory of knowledge” itself was introduced into philosophy relatively recently by the Scottish philosopher J. Ferrer (in 1854), the doctrine of knowledge began to be developed since the times of Heraclitus, Plato, and Aristotle.
Epistemology studies the universal that characterizes human cognitive activity. In its competence is the second side of the main question of philosophy, most often expressed by the question “Is the world knowable?” In epistemology there are many other questions, the disclosure of which is associated with other categories and concepts: “consciousness”, “truth”, “practice” and “cognition”, “subject” and “object”, “material” and “ideal”, “man” ” and “computer”, “sensual”, “rational”, “intuition”, “faith”, etc. Each of these concepts, expressing spiritual or material phenomena, is autonomous and associated with a special ideological problem. However, in the theory of knowledge, they all turn out to be united among themselves through the concept of “truth”, with which they are somehow related.
The problematic and substantive specificity of the philosophical theory of knowledge becomes clearer when it is compared with non-philosophical sciences that study cognitive activity. And there are more and more sciences that study cognition. Currently, cognitive activity is studied by psychology, the physiology of higher nervous activity of humans, cybernetics, formal logic, linguistics, semiotics, structural linguistics, cultural history, history of science, etc. Thus, a new direction has emerged in psychology - cognitive psychology (from the Latin cognitio - knowledge, cognition). For her, analogies with a computer are important, and the primary goal is to trace the flow of information in the “system” (i.e., in the brain). Cognitive psychology studies cognitive activity associated, as U. Neisser notes, with the acquisition, organization and use of knowledge (see: “Cognition and reality. The meaning and principles of cognitive psychology.” M., 1981. P. 23).
All of the named disciplines (or sections) of psychological science are aimed, as we see, at the study of human cognitive activity. They relate to the relationship between the individual (or collective) psyche of people and the external environment, the consideration of psychological phenomena as a result of the influence of external factors on the central nervous system, changes in a person’s behavior or state under the influence of various external and internal factors.
Philosophical theory of knowledge explores largely the same phenomena of cognitive activity, but from a different perspective - in terms of the relationship of cognition to objective reality, to truth, to the process of achieving truth. The main category in epistemology is “truth”. For psychology, sensations, concepts, intuition, doubt, etc. act as forms of the psyche associated with the behavior and life activity of an individual, and for epistemology they are means of achieving truth, cognitive abilities or forms of existence of knowledge associated with truth.
Along with questions about what is the essence of the world, whether the world is finite or infinite, whether it develops, and if it develops, then in what direction, what time, causality, etc. represent, questions occupy an important place in philosophical problems related to the knowledge of objects surrounding a person (things, relationships, processes). “Is the world knowable?” - this is the traditional question that arose in ancient times, when philosophy took its first steps, striving to be an evidence-based, rationally based worldview. But the traditional nature of this particular form of the question can lead to the idea that there were philosophers who believed that the world is not knowable at all.
In the history of philosophy there have been two positions: cognitive-realistic and agnostic, and the first was not always sensitive to the real complexity of the problem.
The first historical form of agnosticism is skepticism. The ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras (c. 490 - c. 420 BC) shared materialistic beliefs and doubted the existence of gods. The philosopher concluded that reliable, i.e., generally valid (“unambiguous”) knowledge of the essence of surrounding phenomena is impossible.
The school of sophists set a goal to substantiate any judgments or points of view, even resorting to logical distortions and paradoxes (sophisms).
The founder of ancient skepticism, Pyrrho (c. 365 - 275 BC), considered sensory perceptions to be reliable (if something seems bitter or sweet, then the corresponding statement will be true); delusion arises when we try to move from a phenomenon to its basis, essence. Any statement about an object (its essence) can be countered with equal right by a statement that contradicts it. It was this line of thought that led to the position of abstaining from final judgments.
In modern times, on the basis of the progressive development of natural science, the ideas of D. Hume and I. Kant about the possibilities of knowledge were formed.
The English philosopher D. Hume (1711 - 1776) argued: “Nature keeps us at a respectful distance from her secrets and provides us with only knowledge of a few superficial qualities of objects, hiding from us those forces and principles on which the actions of these objects entirely depend” (Hume D. Soch.: In 2 vols. T. 2. M., 1966. P. 35).
Without doubting, unlike D. Hume, the existence of material “things in themselves” outside consciousness, I. Kant, however, considered them in principle unknowable. Influencing a person, “things in themselves” evoke in him a multitude of diverse sensations, which turn out to be ordered through a priori forms of living contemplation. So, we cognize only the world of phenomena; things in themselves cannot be achieved by knowledge; they are elusive. “We know nothing,” Kant points out, “about what they (things - P.A.) can be in themselves, but we know only their appearance, i.e. the ideas they produce in us, acting on our feelings.”
The position of the so-called “physiological idealism”, presented in the works of the German physiologist I. Muller (1801 - 1858), is close to the Kantian concept. I. Müller put forward the thesis about the existence of specific energy of the sensory organs, which plays a decisive role in the specification of sensations. He emphasized that “sensation is the result of excitation of energy innate to the sense organ,” that color, for example, does not exist outside the sense organ; external factor“launches” the energy of the corresponding sense organ, which gives rise to the sensation of color in us. From all this I. Muller concluded: “We know neither the essence of external objects, nor what we call light, we know only the essence of our feelings.” What I. Muller said is not some kind of naive mistake, if we remember that color even today is considered the result of the influence of electromagnetic waves on the retina of the eye, which themselves are colorless. I. Müller came to the same idea, to the same scheme of cognitive interaction of the subject with the object, as I. Kant; the only difference was that I. Muller tried to prove the validity of this scheme using physiological data.
The “theory of hieroglyphs” or “theory of symbols” of the German physicist and physiologist G. Helmholtz (1821 - 1894) is also based on the law, or principle, of the specific energy of the sense organs of I. Muller. The difference (from the concept of I. Müller) consists, firstly, in the concretization of this principle, in the establishment of a connection between “specific energy” with individual subsystems of the sense organs, with nerve fibers (since G. Helmholtz believed that there are specific energies of different qualities even in the same sense organ). Secondly, the theory of hieroglyphs gave a more generalized epistemologically general idea of cognition than Müller’s interpretation of it. G. Helmholtz considered both sensations and concepts to be signs. As for sensations, he wrote: “Sensations of the senses are for us only symbols of external objects; they correspond to them as much as a written word or sound corresponds to a given object. Sensory sensations inform us about the features of the external world, but they do this no better than we can communicate to a blind person through words the concept of colors” (Helmholtz G. “Popular Scientific Articles.” St. Petersburg, 1866. Issue I. P. 61 ). Sensory impressions are only marks of the qualities of the external world, signs (symbols, hieroglyphs), the interpretation of which we must learn from experience. Main thesis his concept is “the absence of the closest correspondence between the qualities of sensation and the qualities of the object” (ibid., p. 82).
At the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. Another type of agnosticism has emerged - conventionalism(from Latin conventio - contract, agreement) is defined as a philosophical concept according to which scientific theories and concepts are not a reflection of the objective world, but the product of an agreement between scientists.
Its most prominent representative is the French mathematician and methodologist of science A. Poincare(1854 - 1912). Analyzing the fact of the existence of a number of geometries in science - Euclidean, Lobachevsky, Riemann, A. Poincaré came to the conclusion that “geometric axioms are neither synthetic a priori judgments nor experimental facts. They are conditional propositions... One geometry cannot be more true than another; it can only be more convenient” (Poincaré A. “Science and Hypothesis”. M., 1904. P. 60 - 61). The pragmatic criterion, taken as the only guideline for reliability, led to doubt about the knowability of the essence of material systems and the laws of natural reality; scientific laws, in his opinion, are conventions, symbols.
Conventionalism as a system of ideological views and principles of scientific knowledge has become widespread in recent decades in Western philosophy, as well as in the logic and methodology of science. Conventionalist attitudes were advocated K. Popper, I. Lakatos, P. Feyerabend and many other scientists. The founder of neorationalism, the French philosopher G. Bachelard (1884 - 1962), divided the world into “natural reality” and “technical reality.” In practice, practical actions, he believed, the subject is included in “natural reality”, creates a new one according to the principles of reason through the objectification of ideas. In the process of transformative practice, the subject, however, does not reveal any features of natural reality, but reveals “forms,” “order,” “programs” deployed in “technical reality.” This world is knowable.
The modern philosophical theory of knowledge does not disagree with agnosticism on the issue of the knowability of phenomena (as phenomena, objects of sensory knowledge). They also do not differ in answer to the question: is it possible to know the world as a whole in all its connections and mediations? (The answer to this is negative.)
The difference lies elsewhere - on the question of whether the essence of material systems is knowable. Discrepancies - in the interpretation of the nature of the "phenomenon" - phenomena: do these phenomena have a direct relationship to the essence and is it possible through phenomena to obtain reliable knowledge about the essence of material systems?
When asked about the possibility of obtaining reliable knowledge about the essence of objects (or about the main thing in this essence), agnostics answer negatively, although in different ways, depending on whether they generally recognize the existence of the essence or not, and if they do, what kind of connection they see essences with phenomena.
Thus, the following definition can be proposed as a starting point: agnosticism is a doctrine (or belief, attitude) that denies the possibility of reliable knowledge of the essence of material systems, the laws of nature and society.
Agnostic concepts are divided on many grounds. Exist materialistic and idealistic agnosticism, sensualistic and rationalistic, Humean, Kantian, etc. agnosticism(if we take the names of the creators of the corresponding schools), agnosticism ethical, hieroglyphic, physiological, cybernetic and so on. (by means, nature of argumentation).