From birth, a person is forced to interact with the surrounding reality and other people. He tries to comprehend what he saw and heard. This contributes to the ability to live in harmony with nature and oneself. The science of epistemology defines perception as a phenomenon and distinguishes its two main forms: rational and sensory cognition.
What is sensory cognition?
Sensory cognition is a set of methods for comprehending the surrounding world. Traditionally, it is opposed to thinking, which is secondary. The type of assimilation of reality with the help of feelings is not based on a mental analysis of the properties of any objects. The anatomical and physiological system allows to form specific images and obtain primary knowledge about the external side of objects. Five main senses are responsible for this:
- vision;
- hearing;
- taste;
- smell;
- touch.
Psychology of sensory cognition
From the point of view of psychology, cognition is a process that takes place in several stages. At the first stage, the outside world and all the objects in it are literally “imprinted” into the human psyche. On the second comes comprehension, that is, the formation of concepts and judgments. The final stage is the “exit” from the psyche, when an idea comes, knowledge is formed that allows you to interpret the original feelings.
Sensory knowledge is unique to man. In animals, it is observed to a lesser extent, with its help they gain the necessary experience. The thinking and sensory cognition of people differ from animals in that they are biosocial. We can say that cognitive abilities have evolved and become humanized. Without rationality it is impossible to penetrate into the essence of things and understand the cause of phenomena. These are sides of a single process.
![](https://i1.wp.com/womanadvice.ru/sites/default/files/27/formy_chuvstvennogo_poznaniya.jpg)
Sense cognition in philosophy
The special science of gnoseology (from the Greek gnosis - knowledge, logos - teaching), which considers cognition as a phenomenon, belongs to the section of philosophy. There is a separate trend in it: sensationalism (from lat. sensus - perception), one of the postulates of which is: in the mind there cannot be something that would not have previously arisen in the senses. The most important question that worries thinkers is: do people adequately assess reality? The famous German philosopher Immanuel Kant said that the comprehension of everything begins with experience - the "work" of the sense organs - and distinguished several steps in it:
- emotions;
- reason;
Even ancient Greek philosophers believed that sensations and feelings are the most basic and reliable form of mastering reality. Domestic philosophical literature, based on the works of V.I. Lenin, singled them out as an independent stage, lower in relation to abstract thinking. Modern science refutes old theories, because thinking in an emotional and non-sensual form is different, but each has its own advantages and cannot be inferior to the other. The ability to sense perception is inherent in everyone.
Sensory cognition - pros and cons
If you compare rationalism and sensationalism, you can find their pros and cons. Emotions and sensations play a primary role in getting to know the outside world, moreover, a person receives this type of knowledge himself and quickly. But the sensory way of knowing the world is limited and has its drawbacks:
- there are limits to this process;
- there are errors;
- it is subjective;
- reflects only signs of various objects;
- people's consciousness is much more complex and broader than a set of impressions;
- the content of the intellect cannot be reduced to images and sensations.
Types of sensory cognition
Sensual knowledge of the world is carried out with the help of a sensory system. Each analyzer is affected by the whole system. Form several types of perception:
- through hearing;
- vision;
- tactile contact;
- smell;
- taste buds;
- vestibular apparatus.
Some argue that intuition is sensory knowledge. However, it stands apart from rationalism and sensationalism and is the ability to comprehend the truth as a result of "insight". does not rely on sensations and logical evidence. You can call it a peculiar form of two things - at the same time a rational and non-rational judgment.
![](https://i1.wp.com/womanadvice.ru/sites/default/files/27/chto_takoe_chuvstvennoe_poznanie.jpg)
The role of sensory cognition
Without sensory organs, a person is not capable of comprehending reality. Only thanks to his analyzers does he keep in touch with the outside world. The processes of sensory cognition are activated when there is a need to obtain information about the phenomenon, although it will be superficial, incomplete. If the individual has lost part of the means for contemplation (blind, deaf, etc.), compensation will occur, that is, other organs will begin to work at an increased pace, mode. Especially the imperfection of the human body and the importance of biological sensors are noticeable when the deficiencies are congenital.
Signs of sensory knowledge
Both people and animals can use sensory knowledge. But there is an important element inherent only to rational beings: the ability to imagine what you have not seen with your own eyes. The specificity of the sensory cognition of people is that they form images based on the stories of others. Therefore, we can talk about the huge role of language in the implementation of the cognitive process with the help of sensory organs. The main sign of sensational perception is a direct reflection of the surrounding reality.
Methods of sensory cognition
There are many sets of operations and techniques, thanks to which cognition is carried out. All methods are divided into two types: empirical and theoretical. Due to the peculiarity of sensory cognition, most theoretical (or scientific) techniques, such as analysis, deduction, analogy, etc., are not applicable to it. To create an impression of objects is possible only with the help of the following actions:
- Observation - that is, the perception of phenomena without interfering with them.
- Measurement - determination of the ratio of the measured object to the reference.
- Comparison - identifying similarities and differences.
- An experiment is the placement of objects and phenomena in controlled conditions and the study of them.
Forms of sensory knowledge
Sensory cognition is a gradual process and has three stages that prepare for the transition to another level - abstraction, which is higher. The main forms of sensory cognition:
- Feeling. The starting stage, at which objects affect human organs. Gives a one-sided view of things, for example, a beautiful flower can smell terrible, and a pleasant-looking apple can taste disgusting.
- Perception, which allows you to accumulate knowledge based on one or more sensations and form a holistic image.
- Performance. Reproduction and creation of images that arise in memory. Without this stage, it will not be possible to comprehend reality, since a visual image is formed.
Any sensory knowledge has limits, because it is unable to delve into the essence of phenomena. To go beyond them, thinking is used, which also arises on the basis of previously formed images. Logic and analysis are used to understand the inner essence of phenomena: this is the next step. Living contemplation and abstract thinking are inseparable and equally participate in the path of comprehension of reality.
What is rationalism? This is the most important direction in philosophy, headed by reason as the only source of reliable knowledge about the world. Rationalists deny the priority of experience. In their opinion, only theoretically can one comprehend all the necessary truths. How did the representatives of the rational philosophical school substantiate their statements? This will be discussed in our article.
The concept of rationalism
Rationalism in philosophy is primarily a set of methods. According to the positions of some thinkers, only in a reasonable, gnostic way can one achieve an understanding of the existing world order. Rationalism is not a feature of any particular philosophical movement. It is rather a peculiar way of knowing reality, which can penetrate into many scientific branches.
The essence of rationalism is simple and unified, but it may vary depending on the interpretation of certain thinkers. For example, some philosophers hold moderate views on the role of reason in cognition. Intellect, in their opinion, is the main, but the only means of comprehending the truth. However, there are also radical concepts. In this case, the mind is recognized as the only possible source of knowledge.
Socratic
Before starting to know the world, a person must know himself. This statement is considered one of the main ones in the philosophy of Socrates, the famous ancient Greek thinker. What does Socrates have to do with rationalism? In fact, it is he who is the founder of the philosophical direction under consideration. Socrates saw the only way in the knowledge of man and the world in rational thinking.
The ancient Greeks believed that a person consists of a soul and a body. The soul, in turn, has two states: rational and irrational. The irrational part consists of desires and emotions - base human qualities. The rational part of the soul is responsible for the perception of the world.
Socrates considered it his task to purify the irrational part of the soul and unite it with the rational. The philosopher's idea was to overcome spiritual discord. First you need to understand yourself, then the world. But how can this be done? Socrates had his own special method: leading questions. This method is most clearly displayed in the "State" of Plato. Socrates, as the protagonist of the work, conducts conversations with sophists, leading them to the necessary conclusions by identifying problems and using leading questions.
Philosophical rationalism of the Enlightenment
The Enlightenment is one of the most amazing and beautiful eras in human history. Faith in progress and knowledge was the main driving force behind the ideological and worldview movement implemented by the French enlighteners of the 17th-18th centuries.
A feature of rationalism during the era presented was the intensification of criticism of religious ideologies. More and more thinkers began to elevate the mind and recognize the insignificance of faith. At the same time, the questions of science and philosophy were not the only ones in those days. Considerable attention was paid to socio-cultural problems. This, in turn, set the stage for socialist ideas.
Teaching the people to use the possibilities of their mind - this is the task that was considered a priority for the philosophers of the Enlightenment. The question of what rationalism is was answered by many minds of that time. These are Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Montesquieu and many others.
Descartes' theory of rationalism
Starting from the foundations left by Socrates, the thinkers of the 17th-18th centuries consolidated the initial setting: "Have the courage to use your mind." This setting was the impetus for the formation of his ideas by Rene Descartes, a French mathematician and philosopher in the first half of the 17th century.
Descartes believed that all knowledge should be tested by the natural "light of reason". Nothing can be taken for granted. Any hypothesis must be subjected to careful mental analysis. It is generally accepted that it was the French enlighteners who paved the way for the ideas of rationalism.
Cogito ergo sum
"I think, therefore I am." This famous judgment became the "calling card" of Descartes. It most accurately reflects the basic principle of rationalism: the intelligible prevails over the sensible. At the center of Descartes' views is a man endowed with the ability to think. However, self-consciousness does not yet have autonomy. A philosopher who lived in the 17th century simply cannot abandon the theological concept of the existence of the world. Simply put, Descartes does not deny God: in his opinion, God is a powerful mind that has put the light of reason into man. Self-consciousness is open to God, and it also acts as a source of truth. Here the philosopher forms a vicious circle - a kind of metaphysical infinity. Every existence, according to Descartes, is a source of self-consciousness. In turn, the ability to know oneself is provided by God.
thinking substance
Man stands at the origins of Descartes' philosophy. According to the views of the thinker, a person is a "thinking thing". It is one particular person who is able to come to the truth. The philosopher did not believe in the power of social knowledge, since the totality of different minds, in his opinion, cannot be a source of rational progress.
Man in Descartes is a thing that doubts, denies, knows, loves, feels and hates. The abundance of all these qualities contributes to a reasonable start. Moreover, the thinker considers doubt to be the most important quality. It is it that appeals to a reasonable beginning, the search for truth.
A harmonious combination of the irrational and the rational also plays a significant role in cognition. However, before trusting the senses, it is necessary to explore the creative possibilities of your own intellect.
Dualism of Descartes
It is impossible to exhaustively answer the question of what Descartes' rationalism is without touching upon the problem of dualism. According to the provisions of the famous thinker, two independent substances unite and interact in a person: matter and spirit. Matter is a body consisting of many corpuscles - atomic particles. Descartes, unlike the atomists, considers particles to be infinitely divisible, completely filling space. The soul rests in matter, it is also spirit and mind. Descartes called the spirit a thinking substance - Cogito.
The world owes its origins to corpuscles - particles that are in endless vortex motion. According to Descartes, emptiness does not exist, and therefore corpuscles completely fill the space. The soul also consists of particles, but much smaller and more complex. From all this we can conclude about the prevailing materialism in the views of Descartes.
Thus, René Descartes greatly complicated the concept of rationalism in philosophy. This is not just a priority of knowledge, but a voluminous structure complicated by a theological element. In addition, the philosopher showed the possibilities of his methodology in practice - using the example of physics, mathematics, cosmogony and other exact sciences.
Spinoza's rationalism
Benedict Spinoza became a follower of the philosophy of Descartes. His concepts are much more harmonious, logical and systematic presentation. Spinoza tried to answer many of the questions that Descartes raised. For example, he classified the question of God as a philosophical one. "God exists, but only within the framework of philosophy" - it was this statement that caused an aggressive reaction from the church three centuries ago.
Spinoza's philosophy is stated logically, but this does not make it accessible to the general public for understanding. Many of Benedict's contemporaries recognized that his rationalism was difficult to analyze. Goethe even admitted that he could not understand what Spinoza wanted to convey. There is only one scientist who is truly interested in the concepts of the famous thinker of the Enlightenment. That man was Albert Einstein.
And yet, what is so mysterious and incomprehensible contained in the works of Spinoza? To answer this question, one should open the main work of the scientist - the treatise "Ethics". The core of the thinker's philosophical system is the concept of material substance. This category deserves some attention.
Spinoza's substance
What is rationalism in the understanding of Benedict Spinoza? The answer to this question lies in the doctrine of material substance. Unlike Descartes, Spinoza recognized only a single substance - not capable of creation, change or destruction. Substance is eternal and infinite. She is God. Spinoza's God is no different from nature: he is not capable of setting goals and does not have free will. At the same time, the substance, which is also God, has a number of features - immutable attributes. Spinoza speaks of two main ones: thinking and extension. These categories can be known. Moreover, thinking is nothing but the main component of rationalism. Spinoza considers any manifestation of nature to be causally conditioned. Human behavior is subject to certain reasons.
The philosopher distinguishes three types of knowledge: sensual, rational and intuitive. Feelings constitute the lowest category in the system of rationalism. This includes emotions and basic needs. Mind is the main category. With its help, one can cognize the infinite modes of rest and movement, extension and thinking. Intuition is considered the highest type of knowledge. This is not accessible to all people, almost a religious category.
Thus, the whole basis of Spinoza's rationalism is based on the concept of substance. The concept is dialectical, and therefore difficult to understand.
Kant's rationalism
In German philosophy, the concept under consideration has acquired a specific character. To a large extent, Immanuel Kant contributed to this. Starting as a thinker adhering to traditional views, Kant was able to go beyond the usual framework of thinking and give a completely different meaning to many philosophical categories, including rationalism.
The category under consideration acquired a new meaning from the moment it was combined with the concept of empiricism. As a result, transcendental idealism was formed - one of the most important and controversial concepts in world philosophy. Kant argued with rationalists. He believed that pure reason must pass through itself. Only in this case he will receive an incentive to develop. According to the German philosopher, it is necessary to know God, freedom, the immortality of the soul and other complex concepts. Of course, there will be no result here. However, the very fact of cognition of such unusual categories indicates the development of the mind.
Kant criticized the rationalists for neglecting experiments, and the empiricists for their unwillingness to use reason. The famous German philosopher made a significant contribution to the overall development of philosophy: he first tried to "reconcile" the two opposing schools, to find a compromise.
Rationalism in the writings of Leibniz
The empiricists maintained that there is nothing in the mind that did not previously exist in the senses. The Saxon philosopher Gottfried Leibniz modifies this position: in his opinion, there is nothing in the mind that would not previously be in the feeling, with the exception of the mind itself. According to Leibniz, the soul is born to itself. Intelligence and cognitive activity are categories that precede experience.
There are only two types of truths: the truth of fact and the truth of reason. Fact is the opposite of logically meaningful, verified categories. The philosopher opposes the truth of reason to logically unthinkable concepts. The totality of truths is based on the principles of identity, the exclusion of the third element and the absence of contradiction.
Popper's rationalism
Karl Popper, an Austrian philosopher of the 20th century, was one of the last thinkers who tried to comprehend the problem of rationalism. His whole position can be characterized by his own quote: "I may be wrong, and you may be right; with an effort, perhaps we will come closer to the truth."
Popper's critical rationalism is an attempt to separate scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge. To do this, the Austrian scientist introduced the principle of falsificationism, according to which a theory is considered justified only if it can be proved or refuted by experiment. Today, Popper's concept is applied in many areas.
A18. Spiritual activities include 1) building a library 2) creating a song 3) making a musicaltool
4) print shop work
A19. The highest degree of development of abilities is called
1) uniqueness
2) genius
3) talent
4) originality
A20. Labor as a purposeful activity begins
1) with hunting and gathering
2) from the manufacture of tools
3) with the advent of crafts
4) with the transition to agriculture
A21. A person acquires knowledge through
1) gun activity
2) cognitive activity
3) divine revelation
4) the impact of nature
A22. Generalization is an integral part
1) sensory knowledge
2) production activities
3) rational knowledge
4) gaming activities
1) positivism
2) rationalism
3) empiricism
4) agnosticism
A24. Truth is
1) revelation given by God
2) correspondence of knowledge and the object of knowledge
3) the result of creative insight
4) an abstract concept that is really unattainable
A25. The driving force behind the learning process is
1) guess
2) hypothesis
3) practical activities
4) scientific theory
A26. Is the judgment correct? Man is a product
A. Biological evolution
B. Social evolution
A27. Is the judgment correct? Human activity
A. Programmed by nature
B. Depends on his consciousness and will
Answer options: 1) only A is correct 2) only B is correct 3) A and B are correct 4) both are incorrect
A28. Is the judgment correct? Man becomes a person
A. Immediately after birth
B. As a result of the impact of society
Answer options: 1) only A is correct 2) only B is correct 3) A and B are correct 4) both are incorrect
A29. Is the judgment correct? Human
A. Has a biological basis
B. Has the ability to social adaptation
Answer options: 1) only A is correct 2) only B is correct 3) A and B are correct 4) both are incorrect
A30. Is the judgment correct? Personality embodies traits
A. Characteristic of a given society
B. Individual, highlighting a specific person
Answer options: 1) only A is correct 2) only B is correct 3) A and B are correct 4) both are incorrect
A31. Is the judgment correct? The basis of the characteristics of any personality is
A. Her originality, individuality
B. The degree of assimilation of social experience
Answer options: 1) only A is correct 2) only B is correct 3) A and B are correct 4) both are incorrect
A32. Is the judgment correct? Informal interpersonal relationships
A. Regulated by certain norms
B. Determined by the individual characteristics of the participants
Answer options: 1) only A is correct 2) only B is correct 3) A and B are correct 4) both are incorrect
AZZ. Is the judgment correct? Human freedom is
A. The ability not to be responsible for their actions and deeds
B. Awareness of the measure of one's responsibility
Answer options: 1) only A is correct 2) only B is correct 3) A and B are correct 4) both are incorrect
A34. Is the judgment correct?
A. Any person is a person
B. The personality of a person is the totality of his individual traits
Answer options: 1) only A is correct 2) only B is correct 3) A and B are correct 4) both are incorrect
A35. Is the judgment correct?
A. Tool activity is inherent only to man
B. Animals use and even make tools
Answer options: 1) only A is correct 2) only B is correct 3) A and B are correct 4) both are incorrect
A36. Is the judgment correct? human activity
A. Promotes adaptation to the outside world
B. Transforms the surrounding nature
Answer options: 1) only A is correct 2) only B is correct 3) A and B are correct 4) both are incorrect
A37. Is the judgment correct? human activities
A. Is exclusively consumer in nature
B. Is the result of biological evolution
Answer options: 1) only A is correct 2) only B is correct 3) A and B are correct 4) both are incorrect
A38. Is the judgment correct? Spiritual activity is directed
A. To transform the natural environment
B. To change society
Answer options: 1) only A is correct 2) only B is correct 3) A and B are correct 4) both are incorrect
A39. Is the judgment correct? rational cognition
A. It is based on sensory knowledge
B. Carried out with the help of thinking
Answer options: 1) only A is correct 2) only B is correct 3) A and B are correct 4) both are incorrect
A40. Is the judgment correct? True
A. Tested by practice
B. Objective and relative
Answer options: 1) only A is correct 2) only B is correct 3) A and B are correct 4) both are incorrect
About the natural and social sciences The formation of concepts and theories in the social sciences has become a topic of discussion that is morethan for half a century split not only logicians and methodologists, but also social scientists themselves into two camps. Some of them held the view that only the methods of the natural sciences, which have led to such brilliant results, are scientific, and therefore only they, in their entirety, should be used for the study of human affairs. The rejection of their use, 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 led to the other extreme, namely the conclusion that the social sciences are entirely different from the natural ones. Many arguments have been made in support of this view. It has been argued that the social sciences ... are characterized by an individualizing approach and the search for single affirmative judgments, while the natural sciences are generalizing, they are characterized by the search for universal valid judgments. In a word, the 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, consequently, the method of the former is explanation, the latter, understanding.
Questions and tasks: Do you agree that in the sciences of nature it is impossible to achieve understanding, and the sciences of man do not explain anything?
1. Overview of exercises
The founders of the new philosophy in the 17th century - Descartes in France and Bacon in England - set the main task of developing the correct methodology of the sciences. This question very quickly took on the character of a question about the source or origin of knowledge (or about the "factors" of knowledge) and only, starting with Kant, was again transferred to its main methodological significance.
The sciences that served as a model for methodological research were natural science and mathematics. In the practice of scientific knowledge, the development of natural science was closely connected with the development of mathematics; in the person of Galileo (beginning of the 17th century) and even earlier in the person of the great forerunners of the new science, Nick. Cusa (XV century) and Leonardo da Vinci (end of the XV and beginning of the XVI century). The new natural science arose as mathematical natural science, that is, as the decomposition of experimental data into quantitative elements, the construction of mathematical laws of phenomena and their experimental verification. So arr., in the practice of science, experimental observation and abstract log. analysis found its fruitful combination, and the methodology of natural science found its exact expression in the works of the naturalist Galileo. In philosophy, however, methodological problems led for as long as 2 centuries to a dispute between two schools, of which one, which developed mainly on the continent (France, Holland, Germany), took pure mathematics as a model and considered only knowledge similar to mathematics to be true, that is, e. based on logical analysis (rationalism), while the other, which developed in England, followed experimental natural science as a model and considered experimental observation to be the only basis or source of knowledge.
1. Sensationalism
We receive our knowledge through the organs of external senses: eyes, ears, smell, touch. There is some truth in this. This point of view is called sensationalism / sensus - sensation /. But there are downsides. In ancient Greece, people noticed that sometimes the external senses deceive. There are colorblind people who confuse colors. If you put a stick into the water, the eyes say that the stick is refracted. Less and less distance. Hearing becomes dull with age. Since they sometimes let us down, it means that we cannot trust them at all, although in practice we all believe. Main formula of sensationalism: "There is nothing in the intellect that has not first passed through the senses." You can't be a 100% skeptic.
Most people are sensationalists. And absolutely everyone in practical life is a sensualist. The rationalist view is more complex. But the problem here is how the mind works. For example, city dwellers in nature. They have a lot of emotions, but the mind is silent. The element of true knowledge is the concept. But how do concepts appear? By discarding minor features. But no one does this in practice. [I: expirionism: the source of knowledge is social and personal experience.]
2. Empiricism
Empiricism, having its roots in the English. medieval thought (W. Ockham in the 12th century, the Franciscan monk Roger Bacon in the 14th century), received its first systematic justification from Francis Bacon, at the beginning of the 17th century. (English thinker and statesman of the era of Elizabeth and James I, a contemporary of Shakespeare). Bacon is dissatisfied with all the knowledge that existed in his time. The goal of knowledge is not a fruitless abstract game of the mind, but a practical benefit for life, the mastery of the forces of nature. But this mastery is possible only by "service" to nature, that is, by a careful study of its phenomena. Experienced observation is the only "door" of knowledge. We must cleanse our thought of all preconceived notions (which Bacon calls "idols"); become a "pure mirror" of nature and write down judgments as if "dictated by the voice of nature." Bacon lays down rules for the collection, observation, and classification of natural phenomena (the famous theory of scientific induction or experiment) and requires that we ascend from facts to generalizations in a slow and gradual path of ever-expanding generalizations.
Locke provides a systematic theory of empiricism. Locke rebels against the teachings of Descartes and his followers about "innate" ideas and truths. There are no such innate ideas and truths, which is proved by the disagreement of opinions, the difference in beliefs of different peoples, the possibility of delusions, etc. Our mind at birth is a "white sheet of paper", a "blank slate" (tabula rasa), on which experience first writes its letters. All our ideas, including higher concepts, are generalizations from experience. We have an "external" experience - sensory sensations, and an "internal" experience - psychological self-observation. Both experiences give us "simple ideas", from the combinations of which all complex ideas are formed. However, in evaluating the cognitive significance of experience, Locke deviates from pure empiricism. He recognizes, firstly, the significance of some ideas that cannot be verified by experience (for example, the ideas of substance), although he considers them "vague". Then he proves that the only exact knowledge is the knowledge of purely logical relations between ideas (similarity, difference, and mathematical relations), relations which we perceive by direct contemplation of the general nature of an idea. Knowledge, however, achieved by experimental observation of individual phenomena - knowledge of real relations of coexistence and succession - has a strict basis only for a single case, but as generalizations, or general judgments expressing the laws of nature, it is not such knowledge, but has only a probable value; therefore, Locke does not place a particularly high value on experimental natural science.
The further history of empiricism in the face of the systems of Berkeley and Hume is the history of an ever more rigorous and straightforward application of the requirements of empiricism and, at the same time, of understanding that the satisfaction of these requirements leads to the denial of many things, and in Hume - of all the most essential in our knowledge, i.e. information empiricism to skepticism.
The main representatives of empiricism are Francis Bacon, Locke, Berkeley. Hume.
3. Rationalism
RATIONALISM (lat. rationalis - reasonable, ratio - mind). A philosophical direction based on the belief that the mind [here: thinking ability in general] is the only source of knowledge and the criterion of its truth. R. recognizes reason as the basis not only of knowledge, but also of human behavior. According to the rationalist theory of knowledge, universality and necessity - the logical signs of reliable knowledge - cannot be derived from experience and its generalizations; they can be drawn only from the mind itself, or from concepts inherent in the mind from birth (the theory of innate ideas of Descartes), or from concepts that exist only in the form of inclinations, predispositions of the mind.
Philosophers have begun to say that the true source of our knowledge is the mind. What is mind? It is what allows us to listen, speak, write, read. Rationalist epistemologists say that the main thing is the concept. A philosopher is always a rationalist. The concept is the element of true knowledge. The whole force of rationalism lies in its critique of sensationalism. Where do people get ideas from?
Some say: when comparing objects, common features are taken, put together, and a conclusion is made. Kitchen table, writing table, coffee table - general signs of the concept of "table" are selected. But nobody does this. The problem remains unresolved - the origin of general concepts. Rationalism is a philosophical trend in knowledge, according to which universality and necessity - the logical signs of reliable knowledge - cannot be derived from experience and its generalizations; they can be drawn only from the mind itself, or from concepts inherent in the mind from birth (the theory of innate ideas of Descartes), or from concepts that exist only in the form of inclinations, predispositions of the mind. Experience has a certain stimulating effect on their appearance, but the nature of unconditional universality and unconditional necessity is communicated to them by the previous experience and from it, supposedly independent of the mind's discretion or a priori forms. In this sense, rationalism is the opposite of empiricism. Rationalism arose as an attempt to explain the log. features of the truths of mathematics and mat. natural sciences. Its representatives in the 17th century - Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, in the 18th century. – Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel.
Rationalism has many-sided manifestations in various fields of knowledge. In psychology, he put forward intellectual mental functions, reducing, for example, the will to reason (Spinoza); in ethics - rac. motives and principles of character. activities [Socrates]; in aesthetics - the rational (intellectual) nature of creativity. In all these cases, R. means faith in reason, in the evidence of reasonable discretion, by virtue of evidence. In this sense, R. opposes irrationalism. According to Descartes, a person in his actions is always subordinate to his mind - Descartes developed the Socratic-Platonic line. Gödel's incompleteness theorem points to the limitations of rationalism???
Arguments in favor of rationalism - if we accept the point of view of the sensualists, it turns out that there is no difference between man and beast, animals have even more developed these feelings. Man has speech and reason. Therefore, reason is the source of knowledge. But how can reason give knowledge? The eyes see, but the mind does not see. How the mind works, no one knows. Some leading figures of the rationalists reached paradoxical statements: Plato - "the mind directly touches speculative objects (ideas) and makes copies / icons / from them." For example, the concept of a table. There is such an idea. This theory is the basis for all rationalists. There is another one that is more correct: Aristotle - "there are ideas, but they are in the objects themselves. Reason compares objects, common features are taken, put together, and a conclusion is made." But no one does this in practice. (REPRESENTATION - this is the totality of all signs. The concept is only essential signs.)
All rationalists assert that the element of true knowledge is the concept, it only needs to be precisely defined. This is what mental work is all about. Material for the concept, with t. sp. rationalists, these are true concepts inherent in the mind, as buds are inherent in a branch and come out of it. At the Second Ecumenical Council, the concept of the Trinity was developed from the few exact information of the Holy Scriptures. A person must introduce his own mind into concepts and define. But how did the concepts get into the mind? Plato: the soul, before joining the body, was in the spiritual world, where ideas are located. The soul saw enough ideas and remembered them. This is a mythical explanation, but an explanation nonetheless. And these concepts /ideas/ are then renewed. Knowledge is memory. This is how the theory of innate ideas appeared /Kant, Hegel, Descartes/. When a person assimilates absolute concepts, he becomes deified, that is, he becomes one with God. So they think xr. Gnostics. Learning itself becomes an end in itself.
The main representatives of rationalism are Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz.
Descartes discovers the general criterion of truth: all clear and distinct ideas are true, and the necessary connections between them flow from them; false judgments are the result of arbitrary combinations of ideas, combinations that are possible only when ideas are vague. But all sensory images, all data of perception are vague, they are often erroneous, and, in any case, the opposite of them is conceivable, therefore, they are unreliable. – On the contrary, mathematics, which is strictly a log, serves as an example of reliable knowledge. by moving from self-evident truths (axioms) to conclusions from them; all knowledge is certain insofar as it is likened to mathematics in this sense. The highest basis of knowledge is self-evident truths, which are the logical perception of a connection, clear, simple ideas. These ideas themselves, since they are not borrowed from experience, are evidently innate in our minds; such, for example, is the idea of God, the basic ideas of logic, and the higher rational concepts of scientific knowledge in general.
The conviction of rationalism that a purely logical analysis, without any participation of experimental observation, can give a complete explanation of all relations of being, in a logical sense, is based on the conviction that all real connections and relations can be decomposed into logical relations. By real connections and relationships are meant such as, for example, the relationship between cause and effect, or the regularity of the coexistence of two phenomena, etc.; log. relations are ultimately reduced to relations of cause and effect, by virtue of which B logically follows from A. Spinoza, the successor of Descartes, expressed this conviction in the statement that "the order and connection of things are the same as the order and connection of ideas," and in , which he uses as equivalent concepts of causa (reason) and ratio (base). In Spinoza, "all things follow from the nature of God (who is conceived as the highest foundation of being) in the same way that the equality of its angles to two straight lines follows from the nature of a triangle." Thus, in the world there is no creativity, development, temporary change, everything in the world becomes logically necessary and log. stems from the root cause. Following the program outlined by Descartes, Spinoza writes his Phil. a system of "geometric order", that is, as a textbook of geometry, in the form of axioms, definitions and theorems; and - what is more important - all being becomes in his image some kind of embodied logic.
The last great rationalist, Leibniz, softens rationalism by distinguishing between 2 kinds of truths: “eternal” truths, truths of reason (i.e., purely logical), like mathematical ones, and “truths of fact”, based on stating facts and not logically deducible; the first truths are based on the log. the law of identity, the latter on the "law of sufficient reason" formulated by Leibniz (according to Leibniz's metaphysics - on teleological causality). But in principle, Leibniz also retains the indicated rationalistic conviction, for he asserts that "the truth of a fact is logically unprovable (i.e., cannot be deduced from" eternal truths ") only for the imperfect human mind, while for the perfect mind of God all truths have a purely logical basis. ".
Since the reform of the methodology of knowledge, carried out by Kant, rationalism in this classical form ceases to exist. However, even in post-Kantian philosophy, rationalism is reborn in a peculiar form in the absolute idealism of Hegel, as well as in the modern school of logical idealism (“the Marburg school”). In this latest form, it is usually called "panlogism": in a certain sense it is even more radical than the old rationalism, because it is based on the conviction that all being is reduced to "ideas" and ideal relations. For Hegel, the whole world develops as a logical system of ideas, through the formation of contradictions and their resolution in higher concepts, and "reason", "idea", "concept" become a living force, the manifestation of which is the entire world being.
4. Mysticism
The source of true knowledge is a kind of inner feeling. There is nothing to say about it, but it is there. A mystical way of knowing (from the Greek mustikoV - secret). The mystics say, "I have knowledge of God." They feel, "God descended upon me." Feeling plays a huge role in life. Success or failure depends on mood. They say that there are special feelings that connect us with God, but they cannot explain. The mystics say: God descends upon the soul through feeling. That's what Christians would say. Asceticism is physical. exercises, bows, they help a person to bring the soul to an exalted state.
2. Criticism of empiricism and rationalism
1. The essence of the disagreement
The main point of disagreement is that empiricism derives the universal and necessary character of knowledge not from the mind itself, but from experience. Some empiricists (for example, Hobbes, Hume), under the influence of rationalism, came to the conclusion that experience is not capable of imparting a necessary and universal meaning to knowledge. The limitation of empiricism lies in the metaphysical exaggeration of the role of sensory cognition, experience, and in the underestimation of the role of scientific abstractions and theories in cognition, in the denial of the active role and relative independence of thinking.
The history of empiricism itself provides sufficient material for its criticism. Starting with the assertion that experience is the only source of knowledge, empiricism in the person of Hume comes to skepticism, i.e., to the conclusion that experience in the strict sense does not provide any knowledge, but only raw material for knowledge in the face of individual impressions. This development of empiricism, insofar as it is not accidental but necessary, already contains a refutation of empiricism: if, proceeding from empiricism, all knowledge has to be denied, then it is obviously not knowledge itself that is to blame, but empiricism, which is a bad or insufficient theory. knowledge. The history of empiricism after Hume, in the nineteenth century, does not contradict this conclusion. If J.-St. Mill tried to write the System of Logic in the spirit of empiricism, he achieved this partly due to the inconsistency of his thoughts - he is closer to Locke than to Hume - partly by including a significant dose of skepticism in his empiricism. The later forms of empiricism - Avenarius' "empirio-criticism", and the predominantly American theory of "pragmatism" (the teachings of James and others, according to which the criterion of truth is the practical utility or fruitfulness of the relevant concepts) are thoroughly imbued with skepticism. They deny the objective value of general knowledge, and believe that everything in knowledge, except for single facts, has a purely relative and auxiliary value of a more or less economical, simple and convenient abbreviated description of facts.
Kant, in his theory of knowledge, showed the falsity and ambiguity of the empirical assertion that experience is the only source of knowledge. All our knowledge, says Kant, begins with experience, but is not drawn from experience, that is, it is not based on experience. By experimental knowledge in the narrow sense one must understand only that knowledge, the meaning of which depends entirely on a single observation; but this knowledge is limited to stating a single fact. In all other knowledge, concepts and judgments participate, logically independent of any experience, although psychologically they use experience as a psychological tool for awakening thoughts. This indication eliminated the controversy about innate concepts. It is psychologically quite true that we have no innate ideas and judgments, and that we all learn by learning through experience. But there are elements of knowledge which, while not being innate, are "a priori", i.e. logically independent of experience.
2. All knowledge goes beyond experience
An analysis of knowledge shows that in every judgment, starting with the one that seems to be a simple statement of fact, contains, in addition to purely experimental material, also its subordination or processing in concepts or logical relations that are completely independent of it, i.e. is the logical interpretation of experience in the sense of concepts. Even such a judgment as: “this is red” (seemingly, a purely experimental statement) contains the perception of the identity of a given object with all other red objects, its difference in color from other objects and, together, belonging in quality to a system of colors (in contrast, for example, from sounds, etc.) - all a series of thoughts that are not given in direct sensation. In essence, all knowledge, being the subordination of a single material to the form of a concept, already thereby goes beyond the limits of experience.
The failure of empiricism does not yet prove rationalism. True, all knowledge is the subordination of the material of knowledge to a logical system of concepts, but this logical system exhausts and states the very object of knowledge in only some areas of knowledge (in the purely ideal area, but in mathematics and logic, where, from a logical point of view, experience plays no role. ) In any real knowledge, the system of concepts and logical relations is only a form in which the super-logical content is expressed, i.e. inexhaustible to the end in logical relations. Thus, temporal relations, including causal connection, can never be completely reduced to the logical relation of foundation and effect, because all logical relations are timeless, i.e. are valid once and for all, regardless of the temporal change of phenomena.
The dispute between empiricism and rationalism comes down logically, ultimately, to a purely ontological question. Empiricism wants to understand true being only as a set of individual phenomena and events occurring in time. Rationalism wants to think of being as a log. a system of ideas, i.e., as the timeless being of common contents. In reality, neither one nor the other system can embrace being as a whole and be implemented consistently as a universal system. The temporal, that is, the being of individual phenomena flowing in time, cannot be self-sufficient, since time itself is a unity and is inconceivable otherwise than as continuous. In addition, time is conceivable only as part of a supratemporal unity, otherwise it could not exist (because the past no longer exists, the future does not yet exist, and the present is only an ideal line between the past and the future). Temporal being is conceivable only in connection with timeless unity, and therefore our concepts and logical relations have an objective ontological meaning.
On the other hand, abstract-timeless being forms only the abstract side of holistically concrete being - a side that, however, is conceivable separately from its temporal filling, and in this capacity forms the content of the sciences of the ideal (logic and mathematics), but which logically presupposes concrete supratemporal unity of consciousness and being. In no way can time, temporal being, and the living succession of phenomena be derived from or reduced to the purely logical. Absolute being is neither a single, purely irrational phenomenon of life, nor a bare idea, but is an inseparable unity of life and idea.
3. Once again about the criteria of truth
The rationalist tradition considered the universality and necessity of knowledge to be the main signs of truth. True knowledge does not refer to individual objects, but to classes of objects. The properties of objects fixed in true knowledge manifest themselves with necessity under certain conditions. Rightly asserting that any reasoning begins with certain prerequisites of an axiomatic nature, rationalists considered evidence as a criterion for the truth of these premises. That which is impossible to doubt, that seems to be true with obviousness, was recognized as true. The obvious is comprehended, according to rationalists, by intellectual intuition. This position is found, in particular, in R. Descartes. The development of the rationalistic trend was expressed in the search for internal criteria for the truth of knowledge (logical consistency, self-consistency of knowledge).
The sensationalist tradition names sensations as the criterion of truth. At the same time, in contrast to materialistic, idealistic sensationalism, based on the correspondence of knowledge (concept) to sensations, does not draw a conclusion about the correspondence of knowledge to reality. In the empirical tradition, the role of the criterion of truth is played by experience. The very concept of experience is not limited to sensations. In addition to sensations, experience can include all internal experiences and states of consciousness, as well as external experience, for example, the pragmatic experience of the subject or scientific observation and experiment.
T. n. dialectical materialism puts practice (such a lady) in place of the main criterion. It is she who acts as a common link between the subject and the object and binds them into a system. Thus diamat "overcomes" the opposition of the subject and the object of cognition. Published on the site.
From the article you will learn:
Greetings to all of you, our dear visitors, readers and guests. We continue to talk about cryptocurrencies and today the topic of our article will be Ripple pros and cons in comparison with Ethereum.
I think you know for sure that the correction of cryptocurrency rates has occurred, albeit with a certain delay. If we take into account the period from January 7 to the beginning of December, then a little more than a month, cryptocurrency market capitalization decreased by almost 67%. Meanwhile, a slight increase followed. But even despite such a decline, cryptocurrencies are still ahead of classical assets, since since 2017 their capitalization has grown over 3000% - this is a phenomenal amount.
Best Broker
ETHIR, RIPLE COME OUT OF THE SHADOW
The main contribution to the development of the cryptocurrency market in 2017 was made by these two large cryptocurrencies that emerged from the shadow of Bitcoin, they attracted the attention of many investors!
Speaking in percentage terms, Ethereum grew by 9400% in 2017, and Ripple added a record 35000%. Although Bitcoin was named the most successful cryptocurrency in 2017, we can safely say that this year was left for Ripple, as well as Ethereum.
The fundamental success of these cryptocurrencies lies in the blockchain system. Blockchain is a registry that underlies cryptocurrencies, within which various transactions for a specific currency are recorded. It is generally accepted that the blockchain can be perfectly used in various areas of our activity.
With its help, it will be possible to significantly increase the speed of transactions. In addition, the influence of intermediaries is also leveled, as well as commission costs will be seriously reduced! In general, everyone understands that the same banking sector is far from ideal, while the blockchain is able to correct this situation.
ETHERIUM. WHY IS HE SO SPECIAL?
It is worth saying here that it is thanks to the blockchain that we see a large number of projects developing on the basis of this system. This is the first major blockchain that could be freely used not only as part of making payments.
Roughly speaking, with its help, big business got a unique opportunity to limit itself to innovations not only in the field of translations, but also to solve issues in such industries as, for example, logistics, as well as management! Not surprisingly, in 2017, an alliance of 200 companies was created that began testing the Ethereum blockchain in various areas. As a matter of fact, there is no blockchain that would be better suited for various areas than the Ethereum blockchain.
WATCH MY VIDEO OBSERVATIONS
Main advantages Ethereum is the fact that so-called smart contracts function within its framework. Smart contracts help to facilitate, confirm, and also monitor the objectivity of the conclusion, compliance with any contract. Their main goal is to replace all the usual paper contracts that have long become ineffective, thereby giving business innovation. Smart contracts can really provide security, as the possibility of possible falsification is excluded due to their decentralization!
RIPPLE PLUSES AND MINUSES. WHY IS HE GAINING ATTENTION?
Unlike Ethereum, Ripple focuses more on large-scale cooperation with financial institutions. A distinctive feature of the Ripple blockchain is the incredible speed of transactions, as well as incredibly low fees.
Some organizations have investigated the speed of transactions of certain cryptocurrencies. So, it was noted that Ripple is able to conduct about 1,500 transactions per second, ranking first in cryptocurrencies. Meanwhile, VISA currently conducts over 20,000 transactions. However, Ripple with its blockchain is a scalable structure. Accordingly, Ripple will be able to conduct a huge number of transactions per second. In addition, the commission for each individual transaction is about one cent, which makes the Ripple blockchain very attractive.
At the moment, Ripple is already partnering with several large companies. As a result of the conglomerate, companies note that they are now able to quickly process cross-border transfers that previously took several days, at the same time, they promised serious costs in terms of commissions. Now everything happens instantly, with minimal costs.
THE MOST GLOBAL RISKS OF RIPPLE WITH ETHIRUM
Without a doubt, these are large, promising cryptocurrencies, however, there is risk everywhere, as here too! Despite the fact that there are enough companies that want to try the blockchains of these two cryptocurrencies, there are certain disadvantages that can simply put an end to all bright prospects.
BLOCKCHAIN IS NOT USED IN SCALE IN DIFFERENT AREAS
Here you must understand that it is very important that, despite all the prospects of these cryptocurrencies, everything will be decided by how quickly a business can find a real rational use of blockchain to solve pressing problems.
It should be clearly understood that many people say that the blockchain is incredibly promising, it can be used in many fields. For example, . Meanwhile, we see that the blockchain technology has been around for about 10 years, but it is not used on a large scale anywhere. Yes, there are many companies that are testing it, but there is really no real large-scale application yet!
No one can predict the timing of the actual implementation, use of the blockchain. The blockchain of Ripple and Ethereum has not yet undergone a real test, at the moment, the use of the blockchain of these cryptocurrencies is limited to some small demo projects - nothing more! In addition, you need to understand that at the moment, blockchain cooperation with other systems in different industries is far from always possible.
That is, it means that in some systems it’s just not possible to take and painlessly implement blockchain. Roughly speaking, many systems simply have to be designed from scratch. As you understand, this will result in colossal time and money costs. It is unlikely that there will be those investors who will be ready to invest exorbitant funds in blockchain technology, which has not yet shown itself in practice.
Roughly speaking, if in the near future the business does not find a real application for the blockchain, then the Ripple and Ethereum rates can drop very much!
EVERYONE CAN RELEASE YOUR CRYPT
Another important reason to strain is that anyone can put their own cryptocurrency into circulation. As practice shows, today this is not a problem. Literally in a year, about 600 different cryptocurrencies were created, many of them have their own blockchain!
All that is needed to create a blockchain with a corresponding cryptocurrency tied to it is capital, time, and a development team. This already means that many blockchains can absorb the charms of many cryptocurrencies, eliminating their shortcomings.
That is, I mean, there is no guarantee that tomorrow there will not be a blockchain that will eclipse the pros and cons of Ripple and Ethereum. As a result, they will become completely useless to anyone. Considering the fact that this sphere is actively developing and progressing at the same time, the probability of such a scenario of events cannot be ruled out. Naturally, this kind of alignment will indicate far from in favor of Ethereum and Ripple.
CONCLUSIONS
Yes, without a doubt, the Ripple and Ethereum blockchains are very promising, yes, they are of great interest from many companies. However, many really have a fear, a lack of understanding of the real use of blockchain technology in the everyday sphere. I am not saying that this system has no future. On the contrary, her future is very bright, but the timing is still unclear.