Examples of literary works of romanticism. School encyclopedia

INTRODUCTION

1. CULTURE: DEFINITION AND MEANING

1.1. Culture as an activity

1.2. Different meanings concept of “culture”

1.3. Culture structure

2. THE PLACE OF SCIENCE IN THE CULTURAL SYSTEM

2.1. Specifics of science

2.2. The formation of science

2.3. Institutionalization of science

2.4. Science and technology

CONCLUSION

LIST OF REFERENCES USED

INTRODUCTION

“Culture” in modern humanitarian knowledge - open category. In the broadest sense, Culture is understood as opposition to Nature. Nature and Culture are related as “natural” and “artificial”. According to the famous American sociologist Russian origin Pitirim Sorokin (1889 – 1968) culture is a “supernatural” phenomenon. Science, which arises from the natural cultural need of man to understand the surrounding reality, becomes one of the most effective mechanisms for “man’s exit” from the natural world into the artificial (i.e. cultural) world or the transformation of the natural world in accordance with his needs into cultural reality.

1. Culture as an activity

The category “culture” denotes the content public life and human activities, which are biologically non-inherited, artificial, human-made objects (artifacts). Culture refers to organized collections of material objects, ideas and images; technologies for their manufacture and operation; sustainable connections between people and ways to regulate them; evaluative criteria available in society. This is an artificial environment of existence and self-realization created by people themselves, a source of regulation of social interaction and behavior.”

Thus, culture can be represented in the unity of its three inextricably linked aspects: the methods of human sociocultural activity, the results of this activity and the degree of development of the individual.

Sociocultural activities human includes economic, political, artistic, religious, scientific, moral, legal, technical and industrial, communicative, environmental, etc. These types of activities are common to all cultures at all times. However, the forms and methods of sociocultural activity are not the same in different cultures and cultural eras (technical level of cultures of ancient civilizations, antiquity, the Middle Ages, modernity; modes of transport, methods of metal processing, clothing manufacturing technology, etc.). In this sense, culture acts as a system of extrabiological acquired and extrabiological inherited forms of human activity that are improved in the sociocultural process.

Technological aspect culture occupies a significant place in it. Depending on the types of objects they are aimed at creating, technologies are divided, firstly, into producing and transmitting symbols, secondly, into creating physical objects, and thirdly, into organizing systems of social interaction.

In the course of improving methods of activity, the formation, functioning and development of human personalities . Moreover, the individual simultaneously acts, firstly, as an object of cultural influence, that is, he assimilates culture in the process of his activity; secondly, a subject of cultural creativity, since in one form or another it is included in the process of creating culture; and thirdly, the individual is the bearer and exponent of cultural values, since his life activity unfolds in a certain cultural environment.

The material and spiritual results of sociocultural activity appear not only as certain achievements (values), but also as the negative consequences of this activity ( ecological disasters, genocide, military disasters, etc.). The history of culture is a history not only of acquisitions, but also of losses. Culture presents both progressive and reactionary phenomena. Moreover, the basis for assessment changes over time, and the values themselves are devalued.

The results of human activity are manifested both in specialized areas of culture, where specific values are accumulated, and at the level of everyday culture, the culture of everyday life. We can say that the existence of culture is realized, as it were, on two levels: high, special, elite, and ordinary, everyday, mass. The culture of humanity manifests itself in unity and diversity. The differences between cultures that have ever existed and those that exist today are due, in particular, to spatiotemporal characteristics that give rise to a variety of life forms of individual peoples.

1.2. Different meanings of the concept “culture” ”

The concept of culture can be used in several meanings. Firstly, it can serve to designate any culturally specific -historical community, characterized by certain spatiotemporal parameters (primitive culture, culture Ancient Egypt, Renaissance culture, culture Central Asia and so on.). Secondly, the term culture is used to specific designations life forms of individual peoples(ethnic cultures). Thirdly, culture can be understood as some generalization, model, built according to a certain principle. Cultural models are created by researchers as certain ideal types for the purpose of a more in-depth study of culture based on the generalization of historical material, identifying the forms of cultural life and its elements. They are often used in crop classification. In this sense, the term culture was used by J. Bachofen, N. Ya. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, M. Weber, A. Toynbee, P. Sorokin and others. Cultural models can be created not only at the level of the whole, but also at the level of elements: political culture, legal culture, artistic culture, professional culture, etc.

We can talk about integrity culture in the sense that it is a purely human phenomenon, that is, developing together with man and thanks to his creative efforts. People, precisely because they are people, at all times and, despite all the differences in the natural and geographical environment, pose the same questions to themselves, try to solve the same problems, arranging their life on Earth. Revealing the secrets of nature, the search for the meaning of life, creative impulses, the desire for harmony in human relationships, common to all times and peoples - this is not a complete list of the foundations on which the integrity of culture and the unity of the world socio-cultural process are based.

During this process there are changes in the culture itself. Its value basis is updated, becomes more flexible, new meanings and images are formed, language develops, etc. Over time, the sources of culture change, they are recognized by each new generation as deeper and more ancient, they are sacralized, that is, sanctified by religious tradition, their continuity is preserved.

In addition, over time, differentiation occurs within a culture, as a result of which its separate spheres arise, requiring new means of self-expression, new spiritual and practical experience. This is how painting, music, theater, architecture, philosophy, and science were born. Today we are also witnessing the differentiation of culture: new types of art are being born - holography, light music, computer graphics; new branches of scientific knowledge are emerging.

In this sense, culture acts as a mechanism for consistent development, consolidation and transmission of values, as a balance of combining continuous modernization with an extremely high degree of continuity. Moreover, conservation is an immutable law of civilization, which determines the natural historicity of human activity.

Culture is a phenomenon organic to the life of humanity, its meaning is determined by the creative efforts of man to create a “new world”, “second nature”, or, as the Russian scientist Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863 – 1945) believed, the “noosphere”, that is, the human sphere thoughts and minds, not subject to decay and death.

1.3. Culture structure

In accordance with modern ideas, the following structure of culture can be outlined.

In a single field of culture, two levels are distinguished: specialized and ordinary. Specialized level is divided into cumulative (where professional sociocultural experience is concentrated, accumulated, and the values of society are accumulated), and translational. Based on the anthropological model of man, on cumulative At the level, culture acts as an interconnection of elements, each of which is a consequence of a person’s predisposition to a certain activity. These include: economic culture, political culture, legal culture, philosophical culture, religious culture, scientific and technical culture, artistic culture. Each of these elements at the cumulative level corresponds to an element of culture at ordinary level. They are closely interconnected and influence each other. Economic culture corresponds to housekeeping and maintaining a family budget; political - morals and customs; legal - morality; philosophy - everyday worldview; religions - superstitions and prejudices, folk beliefs; scientific and technical culture – practical technologies; artistic culture - everyday aesthetics (folk architecture, the art of home decoration). On translational level There is interaction between the cumulative and everyday levels; these are, as it were, certain communication channels through which cultural information is exchanged.

Between the cumulative and ordinary levels there are certain communication channels carried out through the translational level: the sphere of education, where concentrated traditions and values of each element of culture are transmitted (transmitted) to subsequent generations; media of mass communication (MSC) - television, radio, print - where interaction takes place between “high” values and the values of everyday life, norms, traditions, works of art and mass culture; social institutions, cultural institutions, where concentrated knowledge about culture and cultural values are accessible to the general public (libraries, museums, theaters, etc.).

The development of technogenic civilization has expanded man's ability to comprehend real world, new ways of transmitting culture have emerged. In this regard, the problem has become urgent elitist and mass culture . The concept of “elitism” of culture was developed by F. Nietzsche, T. Eliot, H. Ortega y Gasset and others. F. Nietzsche associated cultural creativity with an excess of vitality, and the creation of spiritual values with the activities of aristocrats, a caste of “supermen”. American cultural scientist T. Eliot , depending on the degree of awareness of culture, distinguished two levels in its vertical section: the highest and the lowest, understanding by culture a certain image life, which can only be led by a select few - the “elite”. Spanish cultural scientist H. Ortega y Gasset in his works “Revolt of the Masses”, “Art in the Present and the Past”, “Dehumanization of Art”, he put forward the concept of mass society and mass culture, contrasting the spiritual elite that creates culture with the ideologically and culturally separated masses: “The peculiarity of our time is that the ordinary souls, not deceived about their own mediocrity, fearlessly assert their right to it and impose it on everyone and everywhere... The mass crushes everything that is different, remarkable, personal and better... The world was usually a heterogeneous unity of the masses and independent minorities. Today the whole world is becoming a mass.” In modern industrial society Mass culture- a concept that characterizes the features of the production of cultural values designed for mass consumption and subordinate to it, by analogy with the conveyor belt industry, as its goal. If elite culture is oriented towards a select, intellectual public, mass culture orients the spiritual and material values to the “average” level of development of mass consumers.

Speaking about the structure of culture, it is necessary to keep in mind that it is a system, the unity of the elements that form it. The dominant features of each element form the so-called “ core ”culture, which represents a non-antagonistic, stable integrity of leading value orientations. The “core” of culture acts as its fundamental principle, which is expressed in science, art, philosophy, ethics, religion, law, the main forms of economic, political and social organization, in its mentality and way of life. The specificity of the “core” of a particular culture depends on the hierarchy of its constituent values. Thus, the structure of culture can be represented as a division into a central “core” and the so-called “ periphery ” (outer layers). If the core provides stability and stability, then the periphery is more prone to innovation and is characterized by relatively less stability. The value orientation of a culture can change depending on a number of factors, which include economic conditions, ethical standards, aesthetic ideals and the criterion of convenience. For example, modern culture is often called a society of general consumption, since these value bases are brought to the forefront of sociocultural life.

Each element of culture is connected in various ways with its other elements. There is a wide variety of types of such connections in culture. Firstly, culture is systemically formed, integrated through specific organizations, institutions and public opinion, between which there are both material and spiritual connections, realized through “material” (exchange of goods, cultural values) and information exchange. Secondly, at a higher level of integration, culture appears as the interrelation and interaction of its functional elements such as beliefs, traditions, norms, forms of production and distribution, etc. If the phenomenological approach prevailed in cultural studies of the 19th century, then in the 20th century the structural-functional interpretation of culture prevails.

2. The place of science in the cultural system

2.1. Specifics of science

Science, as follows from all of the above, is the most important element of culture. Science includes both specific activity to obtain new knowledge, and the result of this activity is the sum of the scientific knowledge acquired to date, which together forms a scientific picture of the world. The immediate goals of science are the description, explanation and prediction of processes and phenomena of reality. The result of scientific activity, as a rule, is presented in the form of theoretical descriptions, technological process diagrams, summaries of experimental data, formulas, etc. and so on. Unlike other types of activity, where the result is known in advance, science provides an increase in knowledge, i.e. its result is fundamentally unconventional. For example, what distinguishes it from art, as another important element of culture, is the desire for logical, maximally generalized, objective knowledge. Art is often characterized as “thinking in images,” while science is “thinking in concepts.” Thus, they emphasize that art is based on the sensory-imaginative side of human creative abilities, and science is based on the conceptual-intellectual side. This does not mean that there are impassable boundaries between science and art, as well as between science and other cultural phenomena.

2.2. The formation of science

Although elements of scientific knowledge began to form in more ancient cultures (Sumerians, Egypt, China, India), the emergence of science dates back to the 6th century BC, when the first theoretical systems arose in Ancient Greece (Thales, Democritus), and appropriate conditions arose . The formation of science required criticism and destruction of mythological systems and a sufficiently high level of culture, which made it possible for systematic knowledge by science. More than two thousand years of history of the development of science reveals a number of general patterns and trends in its development. “Science moves forward in proportion to the mass of knowledge inherited from previous generations,” wrote F. Engels. As modern research has shown, this position can be expressed in the strict formula of the exponential law, which characterizes the increase in certain parameters of science since the 17th century. Thus, the volume of scientific activity doubles approximately every 10-15 years, which is reflected in the accelerating growth of the number of scientific discoveries and scientific information, as well as the number of people professionally involved in science. According to UNESCO, over the past 50 years the annual increase in the number of scientific workers has been 7%, while the overall population has grown by only 1.7% per year. As a result, the number of living scientists and scientific workers is over 90% of the total number of scientists in the entire history of science.

The development of science is characterized by a cumulative nature: at each historical stage it summarizes its past achievements in a concentrated form, and each result of science is an integral part of its general fund; it is not crossed out by subsequent advances in knowledge, but is only rethought and clarified. The continuity of science ensures its functioning as a special type of “cultural memory” of humanity, theoretically crystallizing the past experience of knowledge and mastery of its laws.

The process of development of science finds its expression not only in the increase in the amount of accumulated positive knowledge. It also affects the entire structure of science. At each historical stage, science uses a certain set of cognitive forms - fundamental categories and concepts, methods, principles, explanation schemes, i.e. everything that unites the concept of thinking style. For example, ancient thinking is characterized by observation as the main way of obtaining knowledge; the science of modern times is based on experiment and the dominance of an analytical approach that directs thinking to the search for the simplest, further indecomposable primary elements of the reality under study; modern science is characterized by the desire for a holistic, multilateral coverage of the objects being studied. Each specific structure of scientific thinking, after its approval, opens the way to the extensive development of knowledge, to its extension to new spheres of reality. However, the accumulation of new material that cannot be explained on the basis of existing schemes, forces us to look for new, intensive ways and developments of science, which leads from time to time to scientific revolutions, that is, a radical change in the main components of the content structure of science, to the promotion of new principles of knowledge, categories and methods of science. The alternation of extensive and revolutionary periods of development is characteristic of both science in general and for its individual branches.

The entire history of science is permeated by a complex combination of processes of differentiation and integration: the development of new areas of reality and the deepening of knowledge leads to the differentiation of science, to its fragmentation into increasingly specialized areas of knowledge; at the same time, the need for a synthesis of knowledge is constantly expressed in the tendency towards the integration of science. Initially, new branches of science were formed on a subject basis - in accordance with the involvement in the process of cognition of new areas and aspects of reality. For modern science, the transition to a problem orientation is becoming increasingly characteristic, when new areas of knowledge arise in connection with the promotion of certain theoretical or practical problems.

Important integrating functions in relation to individual branches of science are performed by philosophy, as well as such scientific disciplines as mathematics, logic, cybernetics, which equip science with a system of unified methods.

Scientific disciplines, which in their totality form the system of science as a whole, can very conditionally be divided into three large groups - natural, socio-humanitarian and technical, differing in their subjects and methods.

Along with traditional research carried out within the framework of any one branch of science, the problematic nature of the orientation of modern science has given rise to the widespread development of interdisciplinary and complex research carried out through various scientific disciplines, the specific combination of which is determined by the nature of the relevant problems. An example of this is the study of problems of nature conservation, located at the crossroads of technical, biological sciences, soil science, geography, geology, medicine, economics, mathematics, etc. Problems of this kind that arise in connection with the solution of major economic and social problems are typical of modern science.

According to their focus, according to their direct relation to practical activities, science is usually divided into fundamental and applied. The task of fundamental sciences is to understand the laws governing the behavior and interaction of the basic structures of nature and culture. These laws are studied in “ pure form” regardless of their possible use. The immediate goal of applied sciences is to apply the results of fundamental sciences to solve not only cognitive, but also social and practical problems. As a rule, fundamental sciences are ahead of applied sciences in their development, creating a theoretical foundation for them.

In science, we can distinguish empirical and theoretical levels of research and organization of knowledge. Elements of empirical knowledge are facts obtained through observations and experiments and stating the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the objects and phenomena being studied. Stable connections between empirical characteristics are expressed in empirical laws, often of a probabilistic nature. The theoretical level of scientific knowledge presupposes the discovery of laws that provide the possibility of an idealized description and explanation of empirical phenomena. Formation of the theoretical level of science leads to qualitative change empirical level.

All theoretical disciplines, in one way or another, have their historical roots in practical experience. However, in the course of the development of individual sciences, purely theoretical ones are discovered (for example, mathematics), returning to experience only in the sphere of their practical applications.

2.3. Institutionalization of science

The formation of science as a socio-cultural institution occurred in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the first scientific societies and the Academy, the publication of scientific journals began. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, a new way of organizing science emerged - large scientific institutes and laboratories with a powerful technical base, which brings scientific activity closer to the forms of modern industrial labor. Modern science is becoming more and more deeply connected with other institutionalized elements of culture, permeating not only production, but also politics, administrative activities, etc. Until the end of the 19th century, science played a supporting role in relation to, for example, production. Then the development of science begins to outstrip the development of technology and production, and a single complex “SCIENCE-TECHNOLOGY-PRODUCTION” takes shape, in which science plays a leading role.

2.4. Science and technology

The general cultural purpose of technology is to free man from the “embraces” of nature, to gain him freedom and some independence from nature. But, having freed himself from strict natural necessity, man in its place, in general, imperceptibly for himself, put a strict technical necessity, being captured by the unforeseen side effects of the technical environment, such as deterioration of the environment, lack of resources, etc. We are forced adapt to the laws of the functioning of technical devices, associated, for example, with the division of labor, rationing, punctuality, shift work, and come to terms with the environmental consequences of their impact. Advances in technology, especially modern technology, require an inevitable price to be paid for.

Technology, replacing human labor and leading to increased productivity, gives rise to the problem of organizing leisure time and unemployment. We pay for the comfort of our homes through the disunity of people. Achieving mobility with the help of personal transport is purchased at the price of noise pollution, the inconvenience of cities and ruined nature. Medical technology, significantly increasing life expectancy, poses developing countries with the problem of a population explosion.

Technology that makes it possible to interfere with hereditary nature creates a threat to human individuality, human dignity and the uniqueness of the individual. By influencing the intellectual and spiritual life of the individual (and society), modern computerization intensifies mental work and increases the “resolving power” of the human brain. But the increasing rationalization of labor, production and the entire life of a person with the help of modern technology is fraught with the monopolization of computer rationalism, which is expressed in the progression of the external rationality of life at the expense of the internal one, due to a decrease in the autonomy and depth of human intelligence, due to the gap between reason and reason. “Algebroization”, “algorithmization” of the style of thinking, based on formal logical methods of forming concepts on which the operation of a modern computer rests, is ensured by the transformation of the mind into a cybernetic, pragmatically oriented mind, losing the figurative, emotional coloring of thinking and communication.

Global computerization is fraught with the danger of losing dialogical communication with other people, giving rise to a “deficit of humanity,” the emergence of early psychological aging of society and human loneliness, and even a decrease in physical health.

There is no doubt that computer technology plays a significant role in professional development person, has a great influence on the general cultural development of the individual: it promotes the growth of creativity in work and knowledge, develops initiative, moral responsibility, increases the intellectual wealth of the individual, sharpens people’s understanding of the meaning of their life and the purpose of man in society and in the universal world. But it is also true that it carries a threat of spiritual one-sidedness, expressed in the formation of a technocratic type of personality.

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

State educational institution higher professional education

"Vladimir State University"

Rabstract

Discipline: Concepttions of modern natural science

Tema: “Science and culture”

Vladimir 2011

Introduction

1. The formation of science

2. Institutionalization of science

3. Science and technology

4. Science as an open form of culture

Conclusion

Introduction

Science, as follows from all of the above, is the most important element of culture. Science includes both the specific activity of obtaining new knowledge and the result of this activity - the sum of the scientific knowledge acquired to date, which together forms a scientific picture of the world. The immediate goals of science are the description, explanation and prediction of processes and phenomena of reality. The result of scientific activity, as a rule, is presented in the form of theoretical descriptions, technological process diagrams, summaries of experimental data, formulas, etc. and so on. Unlike other types of activity, where the result is known in advance, science provides an increase in knowledge, i.e. its result is fundamentally unconventional.

For example, what distinguishes it from art, as another important element of culture, is the desire for logical, maximally generalized, objective knowledge. Art is often characterized as “thinking in images,” while science is “thinking in concepts.” Thus, they emphasize that art is based on the sensory-imaginative side of human creative abilities, and science is based on the conceptual-intellectual side. This does not mean that there are impassable boundaries between science and art, as well as between science and other cultural phenomena.

1. The formation of science

As modern research has shown, this position can be expressed in the strict formula of the exponential law, which characterizes the increase in certain parameters of science since the 17th century. Thus, the volume of scientific activity doubles approximately every 10-15 years, which is reflected in the accelerating growth of the number of scientific discoveries and scientific information, as well as the number of people professionally involved in science. According to UNESCO, over the past 50 years the annual increase in the number of scientific workers has been 7%, while the overall population has grown by only 1.7% per year. As a result, the number of living scientists and scientific workers is over 90% of the total number of scientists in the entire history of science.

Each specific structure of scientific thinking, after its approval, opens the way to the extensive development of knowledge, to its extension to new spheres of reality. However, the accumulation of new material that cannot be explained on the basis of existing schemes forces us to look for new, intensive ways and developments of science, which leads from time to time to scientific revolutions, i.e. a radical change in the main components of the content structure of science, to the promotion of new principles of knowledge, categories and methods of science The alternation of extensive and revolutionary periods of development is typical both for science as a whole and for its individual branches.

The scientific disciplines, which together form the system of science as a whole, can very conditionally be divided into three large groups - natural, socio-humanitarian and technical, differing in their subjects and methods. Along with traditional research carried out within the framework of any one branch of science, the problematic nature of the orientation of modern science has given rise to the widespread development of interdisciplinary and complex research carried out through various scientific disciplines, the specific combination of which is determined by the nature of the relevant problems. An example of this is the study of environmental problems located at the crossroads of technical, biological sciences, soil science, geography, geology, medicine, economics, mathematics, etc.

Problems of this kind that arise in connection with the solution of major economic and social problems are typical of modern science. According to their focus, according to their direct relation to practical activities, science is usually divided into fundamental and applied. The task of fundamental sciences is to understand the laws governing the behavior and interaction of the basic structures of nature and culture. These laws are studied in their “pure form” without regard to their possible use. The immediate goal of applied sciences is to apply the results of fundamental sciences to solve not only cognitive, but also social and practical problems. As a rule, fundamental sciences are ahead of applied sciences in their development, creating a theoretical foundation for them.

In science, we can distinguish empirical and theoretical levels of research and organization of knowledge. Elements of empirical knowledge are facts obtained through observations and experiments and stating the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the objects and phenomena being studied. Stable connections between empirical characteristics are expressed in empirical laws, often of a probabilistic nature. The theoretical level of scientific knowledge presupposes the discovery of laws that provide the possibility of an idealized description and explanation of empirical phenomena. The formation of the theoretical level of science leads to a qualitative change in the empirical level.

All theoretical disciplines, one way or another, have their historical roots in practical experience. However, in the course of the development of individual sciences, purely theoretical ones are discovered (for example, mathematics), returning to experience only in the sphere of their practical applications.

2 . Institutionalization of science

The formation of science as a socio-cultural institution occurred in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the first scientific societies and academies were formed in Europe, and the publication of scientific journals began. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, a new way of organizing science emerged - large scientific institutes and laboratories with a powerful technical base, which brings scientific activity closer to the forms of modern industrial labor. Modern science is becoming more and more deeply connected with other institutionalized elements of culture, permeating not only production, but also politics, administrative activities, etc. Until the end of the 19th century, science played a supporting role in relation to, for example, production. Then the development of science begins to outstrip the development of technology and production, and a single complex “SCIENCE-TECHNOLOGY-PRODUCTION” takes shape, in which science plays a leading role.

3 . Science and technology

Science of the 20th century is characterized by a strong and close relationship with technology, which is the basis of the modern scientific and technological revolution, defined by many researchers as the main cultural dominant of our era. The new level of interaction between science and technology in the twentieth century not only led to the emergence of new technology as a by-product of fundamental research, but also led to the formation of various technical theories. The general cultural purpose of technology is to free man from the “embraces” of nature, to gain him freedom and some independence from nature. But, having freed himself from strict natural necessity, man in its place, in general, imperceptibly for himself, put a strict technical necessity, being captured by the unforeseen side effects of the technical environment, such as deterioration of the environment, lack of resources, etc. We are forced adapt to the laws of the functioning of technical devices, associated, for example, with the division of labor, rationing, punctuality, shift work, and come to terms with the environmental consequences of their impact. Advances in technology, especially modern technology, require an inevitable price to be paid for.

By influencing the intellectual and spiritual life of the individual (and society), modern computerization intensifies mental work and increases the “resolving power” of the human brain. But the increasing rationalization of labor, production and the entire life of a person with the help of modern technology is fraught with the monopolization of computer rationalism, which is expressed in the progression of the external rationality of life at the expense of the internal one, due to a decrease in the autonomy and depth of human intelligence, due to the gap between reason and reason. “Algebroization”, “algorithmization” of the style of thinking, based on formal logical methods of forming concepts on which the operation of a modern computer rests, is ensured by the transformation of the mind into a cybernetic, pragmatically oriented mind, losing the figurative, emotional coloring of thinking and communication.

As a consequence of this, the deformation of spiritual communication and spiritual connections is increasing: spiritual values are increasingly turning into bare anonymous information, designed for the average consumer and leveling personal and individual perception. Global computerization is fraught with the danger of losing dialogical communication with other people, giving rise to a “deficit of humanity,” the emergence of early psychological aging of society and human loneliness, and even a decline in physical health.

There is no doubt that computer technology plays a significant role in a person’s professional development and has a great influence on the general cultural development of the individual: it promotes the growth of creativity in work and knowledge, develops initiative, moral responsibility, increases the intellectual wealth of the individual, sharpens people’s understanding of the meaning of their life and purpose man in society and in the universal world. But it is also true that it carries a threat of spiritual one-sidedness, expressed in the formation of a technocratic type of personality.

4 . Onscience as an open form of culture

From the fact that science is aimed at criticizing comfort, it follows that ideas about the world formed on its basis can be qualified, at least in a tendency, as inhuman and thereby, in a certain sense, as inhuman. There is something scary in science for a person merged with his comfortable world. Even the ancients felt the danger of knowledge. Solomon said “he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.” Pre-scientific culture tried to prevent man from penetrating into the endless layers of reality, to hide the knowledge already acquired in a narrow subculture of priests. Knowledge exceeding a certain limit acceptable in the corresponding culture brought discomfort. The relative weakness of reproductive capabilities did not allow adequately respond to new knowledge, build effective program reproduction. Against this background, the movement of science was an act of unheard-of courage, an attempt to enter hell, to move further and deeper into it. But other forms of culture, especially art, have taken the path of creating a different kind of comfort. Avant-garde and modernism constantly stormed the historically established boundaries of the comfortable world. Science, by the very fact of its existence, unlocks the immobility of the comfortable world, disorganizing streams of novelty for this world; what was understandable only yesterday becomes incomprehensible; what was considered safe yesterday is a threat to humans. It turned out that it was dangerous to use lead cups; the ancients did not know this, and this ignorance, according to some experts, greatly damaged Ancient Rome. Recently it became known that seemingly harmless electromagnetic fields are dangerous for humans. Areas that scientists regard as fraught with earthquakes are spreading across maps of the earth. Modern science seems to be sophisticated in looking for these dangers literally everywhere. Their continuous discoveries do not make life emotionally more enjoyable. There is, however, a reverse process. It turned out that the demon who is constantly trying to harm everyone is an illusion, as is the danger from the “evil eye”, from a cat crossing the road, etc.

The closedness of comfortable ideas carries with it the threat of being at the mercy of illusions, the inertia of history that has come to us from the past, perhaps comfortable, but, alas, no longer for us, not for today’s world. Here humanity is faced with a fundamental problem, on the constant daily solution of which the existence of people depends. The discrepancy between two comfortable pictures of the world permeates the way of life, reproduction, making any decisions, forming any meanings, sometimes giving rise to fantastic hybrids. A person can follow medical recommendations and at the same time indulge in superstitions. This desire to pursue two contradictory, perhaps mutually exclusive, mutually destructive programs of activity can give rise to dangerous streams of disorganization.

The discrepancies between programs can be profound. For an addict, the world of drugs is comfortable. But positive knowledge says that drugs bring death, that is, this is the world that is uncomfortable. The arguments of science do not convince drug addicts not because they have others that are more convincing from a scientific point of view. Addicts and scientists are oriented to different cultural bases. Drug addicts follow their emotional preferences, which have arisen as a result of mastering certain established subcultures. In science, following the logic of subject knowledge with coercive force forms the conclusion that the behavior of a drug addict is incompatible with the value of life.

Mutually exclusive notions of comfort can become the basis for massive violent clashes. A recent example: in South Korea, annual per capita income has increased from $87 to $10,000 since 1962. From the point of view of common sense, this should have sharply increased the level of mass comfort. In reality, however, a powerful mass student movement, not stopping at violence, demands immediate unification with a hungry, poor, totalitarian North Korea. The comfortable world of these people is associated not with a better life according to our ideas, but with a worse life. However, there is no need to go to other countries for examples. Russia made a similar choice in 1917, taking the path of implementing a pre-market equalization program for solving problems.

The dispute about the fate of Russia right up to today occurs between those who put forward ancient cultural values and those who base their reasoning on world science and its logic. In other words, the parties to this dispute are based on different cultural foundations. And its resolution is possible only through the correlation, interpenetration of these foundations, the removal of their opposition through dialogue. The entire human world, the more complex and dynamic it is, the more it is woven from such inconsistencies. They can be in the nature of differences, antinomies, contradictions, conflicts, a split between previously established comfort and truth, between comfort and the ability to survive, to create programs that ensure survival.

Science is not only trying to replace one comfortable world with another. It also changes the very principle of dividing the world into comfortable and uncomfortable. A comfortable world is seen as an active one, a comfortable reality is an intense search for the opportunity to live in this world, constantly confronting dangers with increasing persistence and skill. The world ceases to be viewed as given, ready-made, closed, just as a sphere of adaptation. Its ability to withstand dangers comes to the fore. Ours is comfortable open ability identify dangers and bravely confront them.

Science breaks with the old morality, which carries a program for the reproduction of some absolute. This gave rise to the French mathematician A. Poincaré to say that “science is beyond morality.” The description of the world in the concepts of science occurs in an objective modality, that is, the meaning formed by science correlates with a non-subjective object. The scientist describes the trajectory of the comet objectively and impartially, even if it should crash into the earth and destroy humanity. The doctor can rejoice if he has made the correct diagnosis, even if the disease does not bode well for the patient. He is concerned about the correctness of his calculations, objectivity, and the predictive potential of his knowledge. This seems to indicate that Poincare is right. However, science carries its own morality, which places adherence to the logic of scientific research above the values of a pre-existing culture, political factors, personal relationships, etc. This principle was expressed in the famous phrase of Aristotle. Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer." It follows that it is comfortable for science to follow some abstract logic of knowledge, the logic of the subject, and not sympathy, self-interest, or social pressure.

Science is characterized by the fact that previously hidden dangers are continuously revealed and an attempt is made to bring them under control. The difference between a comfortable and uncomfortable world here is relative, probabilistic, and changes not only under the influence of new factors, but also as a result of the development of people’s ability to withstand dangers. The paradox of the increasing influence of science is that, despite the destructiveness of science for static comfortable pictures of the world, its development, nevertheless, coincides with the progress of humanism. Much has been written about how science is the culprit of modern ills. It creates weapons of mass destruction, equipment that destroys, poisons the environment, etc. Defenders of this point of view unwittingly turn science into a special subject next to man. In reality, science is only a form of human self-expression, his creative forces. It is a form of manifestation of humanism in the sense that it is a cumulative process that accumulates programs for the development of human creative powers, the ability to form new layers of knowledge that are aimed at overcoming dangers, threatening people, originating far from the sphere of reality that is today subject to man. Science fights against dangers in man himself, both at the level of physiology and against disorganization of thinking. This struggle will never achieve complete final victory, but it is a process that must keep pace with the growth of dangers in all forms. This requires constant self-development, openness in knowledge, and creativity from a person.

Of course, the real history of science is full of compromises, attempts to combine new ideas with old ones, to form hybrids. The relationship between science and religion is only an aspect of this story. Some scientists died under the blows of traditionalists, for example D. Bruno, others compromised under pain of death, for example G. Galileo, others prostituted science in the name of state ideology, for example Soviet social scientists under conditions of terror. Another group reduced science to the level of ordinary comfortable consciousness, fearing its discomfort. Among them we can point to the “people's academician” T. Lysenko. People of this type naively believed that science was more effective remedy for the limitless expansion of the previously established comfortable world, its further improvement, something like the Bolshevik “march from victory to victory.” In reality, science is really aimed at expanding the sphere of a comfortable world, but paradoxically it does this through revealing the real discomfort of the world that was considered comfortable. In other words, science can indeed achieve victories, but not in the field of comfortable, established, closed traditionalism. The danger, however, lies in the fact that from the destruction of comfort to the victory over the emerging danger, time passes, perhaps indefinitely. This circumstance fuels pessimism in the assessment of science.

It is worthy of surprise - they were not stoned, they were not sent to camps as violators of comfort, where they best case scenario could be re-educated traditional forms labor, historically associated with traditional ideas about comfort. The reason that science survived even in the face of the explosion of traditionalism is a special and very instructive topic. It is only important to note that science in countries where traditionalism has reached maturity could rely on the growth of social need for expanding the pace of novelty, for more effective solutions. In countries where archaic layers of traditionalism predominated, science was sometimes interpreted as a function of a totem, of certain sages who became familiar with the sacred. Nevertheless, science has formed a new open model of culture, new reproduction programs, and has identified new ways to create a comfortable world.

The duality of our ideas about the world goes far beyond the problems of forming the duality of thought and social organization. It also covers the duality of programs, which ultimately turns into the duality of social forms

Conclusion

knowledge science duality culture

Thus, the functioning of science as an element of culture is determined by various factors, both cultural and natural origin. Science itself, as a result of its historical development, turns into a culture-forming factor in the development of humanity, which carries contradictory consequences: the acceleration of cultural and civilizational processes, on the one hand, and the spiritual devastation of culture, on the other. Therefore, today special attention should be paid to the most important problem of the humanization of science, which is widely discussed in the world press.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Science as a phenomenon of human culture

In the modern understanding, science is usually considered as one of the components (along with art,morality,right, ideology, religion etc.) spiritual culture humanity.

The science- is a certain system of knowledge about nature, about society, O person, as well as a special type of spiritual production, the goals of which are to obtain true knowledge, accumulate and improve it.

In addition, science refers to the totality social institutions, within which this production is carried out.

In the strict sense of the word science as a phenomenonculture appeared in the 17th century, which was associated with the ability to experimentally verify the truth of the knowledge acquired. Science and society are interconnected. Science can neither arise nor develop outside society. In turn, modern society can no longer exist without science, which contributes to meeting needs in all spheres of society, acts as a factor of social development. Based on knowledge of the laws of functioning and evolution of the objects under consideration, science makes a forecast of the future of these objects for the purpose of practical mastery of reality.

Scientific knowledge is guided by certain ideals And standards scientific activities, which represent certain approaches, principles, attitudes characteristic of scientists in different stages developments of science and changing over time (such, for example, the transition from the physics of I. Newton to the physics of A. Einstein). The unity of ideals and norms of scientific knowledge that dominate at a certain stage of the development of science is expressed by the concept “ style of scientific thinking."

In this work we continue research in the field of metaphysics of consciousness

its certain global connections (or infinity effects),

"physically" encoded in the principles and ways of life of special organic

integrity or self-developing, transforming and reflexive systems.

In this part of the study I am interested in the ability of this type

systems - due to the figurative imagination of the effects of infinity in their

foundations and principles, bodily-artifactual actions in their reproduction

and sustainable functioning, due to the presence of special “internal knowledge”

of these systems and the “representation” in them of primary effectiveness in

space of mappings and realizations, the dependence of the latter on repetition

efforts (activities, “energies”) in individual loci of systems, etc. -

form their own “anti-images” and “antibodies”.

But first of all, the fact of the presence of cultures in holistic

systems of this kind.

This problem is cut through by many paths along which one could

go through, connecting along the way its different aspects, sides, possible

dissection, abstraction, etc., but I naturally have to choose some

one of them. As a through thread I will therefore choose the problem that

could be called ontological, i.e. regarding the form in which

scientific knowledge determines the place and capabilities of man in a world independent of

man and humanity, and how much it itself is determined by these

possibilities that this world actually allows and develops.

In my opinion, it is from the point of view of ontology that one can clearly see how

the difference between science and culture, and the possible connections in which they

can enter into relationships with each other that are generally tense and

dramatic, which they are, regardless of any real

cultural crises in a particular historical era. In other words, I

I think that there is not only a difference between science and culture, but also

constant tension between them, which lies at the very essence of these two phenomena and

not brought about by any specific dramatic circumstances,

for example, those who in the 20th century. usually called “biculture” (C. Snow),

those. painful gap between natural scientific knowledge, on the one hand,

and humanitarian culture - on the other. I will be distracted from this because

in general, this is a secondary feature, derived from the very connection that I am talking about

want to talk.

The essence of the matter can be briefly formulated as follows: the very possibility

posing the question of culture and science as different things (which,

certainly poses a paradox, since we always define science

as part of the cultural heritage) is connected, it seems to me, with the difference between

call science, and the existence of these same conceptual formations or their

Indeed, what is the mental content of, for example, universal

physical laws that most directly constitute the essence of science?

It is clear that it is connected primarily with their empirical solvability according to

certain experimental rules that do not contain any indication of their

"cultural" place and time. This is simply a consequence of the fact that the formulation

such laws cannot be limited to the particular, concrete (and in this sense

Random) character of a human being, the very appearance of a person as

reflective, cognizing, etc. "devices". Moreover, in its content

physical laws also do not depend on that fact that those observations on

on the basis of which they are formulated and implemented on Earth, i.e. in private

conditions of the planet called "Earth". For this purpose in science there is a sharp

the distinction between the laws themselves and their initial or boundary

conditions. Science from the very beginning of its emergence (not only

modern, where this feature is clearly visible, but also antique)

oriented, so to speak, cosmically in its content.

In other words, science taken in this dimension involves not only

universality of human mind and experience in relation to all societies

and cultures, but also in general the independence of their contents from the private,

nature on Earth of this type of sensory and intellectual device

cognizing being. Not to mention the randomness of in what society and in

what culture is a human being who is somehow

formulates such universal physical laws.

Consequently, we get here a strange picture, at least in

in the following sense. On the one hand, we are dealing with the human attitude

their connections, through invariants and symmetry structures, through readings

experimental indications identified with consequences deduced from

first, etc.) laws and objective order of the world, which

are expressed in terms and characteristics independent of randomness

fulfillment or non-fulfillment by a thinking being of the whole of his life, depending on

in what mode does it proceed and reproduce as something stable and

ordered. On the other hand, it is absolutely certain that the indicated

laws (and this is the ideal of knowledge) themselves exist in this mode of actualization

conscious life, since they are a real phenomenon of the life of certain

beings in the Universe who, because they are engaged in theory, do not

cease to be themselves an empirical phenomenon (precisely as cognizers, and not

psychologically), which in turn must happen (or not happen),

to remain and take place (or not to take place), realizing some condition of being

as a whole (and, one might say, even “in the slightest” we are realized only

realizing at the same time a certain existential condition). And the subject of the event (i.e. such

knowledge or state that can be said to have happened is real

took place) is always known to belong to a certain society,

a certain time, a certain culture.

We don’t just see the world through “essences,” but we ourselves must occupy

place in it as thinkers. It’s not a pure spirit hovering over the world,

will know! (A bright light would be cast on the understanding of culture, apparently, by the implementation

analysis of how and to what extent the physical laws themselves allow

possibility in the world of beings capable of discovering and understanding these laws.)

Knowledge, therefore, is not a disembodied mental act of “seeing through,” but

something that has the features of an event, existence and, running a few

In this phenomenological section we are faced with the problem of the presence

differences between what we see in scientific knowledge as universal

physical law, which does not depend on us and, moreover, lives as a real

a phenomenon of some kind of “natural life” in the Universe (since

the being who owns it is part of it), and by the way we assimilated, mastered that

what we ourselves know and can mentally observe, and its sources; like us

we own all this in the constant reproduction of conditions and premises

corresponding cognitive act, which involves updating and

the realization of a certain organization of the thinking being itself in everything

the whole of his conscious life and in communication with his own kind. In the last

there is a dependence that imposes certain restrictions on what

we can undertake and how we can act in the world as conscious

and knowing beings. In a sense, a person must always realize

some wholeness and orderliness of your conscious life, so that inside

what I called density, corporeality, could be expressed or, if

anything, happen, be noticed, succumb to the discretion of physical laws.

This is where cultures grow, because the noted realization is not ensured and

is not guaranteed by the natural, spontaneous course of natural processes. This

the dependence of the existence of truth as a phenomenon on what happens to

by a person, with a subject, which precisely leaves room for the development of culture as

special mechanism, because the organization of sustainable reproduction

interconnected single experiences of perception of an object in the world and choice

concepts that clarify them are not genetically encoded in each instance

of the human race, but essentially presupposes communication (or communication)

individual experiences, learning from the experiences of others and creating a horizon

"distant", completely different from following natural inclinations and

instincts inherent in each individual. To summarize this line of thought, let's say in

in slightly different expressions: there is a difference between scientific knowledge itself and

that dimension (always specific, human and, now I note, -

cultural), in which we own the content of this knowledge and our

own cognitive forces and their sources. This is the last one in

difference from nature, and is obviously called culture, taken in a given

case in relation to science. Or it can be expressed this way - in science as

culture.

Knowledge is objective, but culture is subjective. It is subjective

side of knowledge, or the method and technology of activity determined by

resolving capabilities of human material, and, conversely, how we

"permissive measures" (we will then have to talk about the latter as

cultural and historical, rather than natural products, thereby introducing the concept

culture against the background of distinguishing it from nature). It is the same in art, etc.

Thus it is clear that by the problem of "science and culture" I do not mean

the external problem of the relationship of science in culture as a whole with its other components

parts - everyday consciousness, art, morality, religion, law

etc., I’m not trying to fit science into this whole. No, I'm just choosing

paths, I chose the one within the boundaries of which I consider science itself as

culture, or, if you like, culture (or rather, the cultural mechanism) in

I repeat, science is culture to the extent that its content

a person’s ability to own what he has achieved is expressed and reproduced

knowledge of the universe and the sources of this knowledge and reproduce them in time

and space, i.e. in society, which presupposes, of course, a certain

social memory and a specific coding system. This system

coding, reproduction and transmission of certain skills, experience,

knowledge that is given a human measure, or rather, a human dimension

possible, a system that has primarily a sign nature is culture

in science, or science as culture.

But having defined science this way, we got a strange thing. Taken from the outside

culture, it is similar to all other types of human activity (in

art, morality, law, etc.), which should also be culture,

some experience and skills are preserved, encoded and transmitted,

transforming and cultivating the spontaneous relationships of each individual

individual to the world and other individuals. But I think that such identification

science with other cultural phenomena is beneficial for us, not harmful. In which

Let's think about the following simple fact. It is considered long established in science

an axiom that the science of unique phenomena does not exist and is not possible, i.e.

those that cannot be placed in the family of similar phenomena.

For example, a language that cannot be placed in a language family cannot be

linguistic analysis. But the phenomenon of scientific knowledge itself is in our

in everyday use we nevertheless regard it as unique (it

And not art, and not morality, and not law, etc.). But then, therefore,

one cannot construct knowledge about knowledge. How can we claim

then to have a scientific theory of knowledge, epistomology, etc.? It's clear that about

we can say something scientific to science if we can stage a scientific phenomenon

as an equal member of some wider family. And this one is more

the broad family, of course, is the way in which science, in a series

other cultural phenomena, refers to a human phenomenon, just with

point of view of the problem that I spoke about at the very beginning. Namely:

how depending on science (depending on art, phenomenon

moral consciousness, law and order - the list goes on)

the human phenomenon is defined in space and how it is multiple in it

is steadily reproduced as this special one (i.e. not by nature

given, although in nature objectively observable)? Can't be natural

way of being human: there is no “towards the humane” in it (including here “thought”)

coercion or infliction. Taking science in this context, we can get

further definitions of science as culture, also applicable to other

types of cultural activity, but distinguishing it, together with them, from nature

or from natural phenomena.

Moving along the lines of force of the contradiction that was formulated in

beginning (i.e. the contradiction between the content of knowledge and its existence), we

We will immediately see the following circumstance here. Speaking of space

the situation in which science places a person, the situation that distinguishes him

from his private image and which he seeks to understand, breaking through this

image, we must inevitably imply the existence in the Universe

certain phenomena, processes, events that, although observed in it

physically, however, would not take place by themselves, i.e. self-action

natural connections and laws, without human presence. After all, the wheels are

of the Universe, by themselves, as a natural phenomenon, do not rotate, projectiles do not

fly, electrons leave no traces in the cloud chamber, but human

creatures do not perform heroic or generally moral actions,

contrary to any natural expediency or life instinct.

Although, I repeat, since they have already happened, they are physically observable

fact. That is, in the composition of the Universe there are phenomena that, according to the laws

nature as such would not occur, but, having occurred, are observed from the outside

quite physically and by the laws of nature are allowed. And this is existence, not

for some reason they belong to the sphere of obligation.

In other words, there are special items that cannot, with one

on the other hand, to reduce it to pure “spirit”, to rational inventions of the mind, and on the other hand

Deduce them from existing or possible future physical laws.

In relation to them, the latter are not completely defined and are not unique. Such

This kind of objects is the material of culture. These are things of living consciousness, things

mind. Culture both in science and in other fields of activity grows from

something that could not happen in them according to natural laws, but still somehow

occurs and, having occurred, is observed as a certain kind

existences that expand human capabilities and are, despite all

naturalness and materiality of its form (language, tools, devices,

images of works of art, numbers, scientific models, personal performances

whole life in heroic example etc.) only by organs

reproduction of human life. Marx once noticed an interesting

thing: equating Darwin's theory with the first history of "natural technology",

those. to the history of organs as means for animals to produce their lives, he

believed that the history of productive

organs of social man.

Therefore, taking scientific knowledge in its relation to human

phenomenon and to those conditions that are not given by nature, I first highlight

everything that is done in the world because it can be done in another way,

natural, cannot and must, therefore, have “organs” for this.

These objects or cultural phenomena structure and generate around them

a force field in which things can happen that naturally occur in

cause-and-effect linkage and sequential action of natural

no mechanisms occur; for example, the state in which (or from

which) we see in the world as a universal physical law.

In the sense of consequences for humans, for cultural genesis, this is -

the human-forming role of science, steadily reproducing and supporting

time and space something that happened - as a possibility of understanding

and visions of the world - “once and for the first time” (naturally, it could not happen in any

first time, not again). This abstraction, relatively speaking phenomenological,

in which the existence of knowledge along with its content is highlighted, it is difficult

catch and record, but it is important.

On the other hand, cultural phenomena are those phenomena that

replace the physical abilities naturally given to a person, transforming them

work into some structure and into some way of action, result,

the stability and uniqueness of which not only do not depend on chance

individual abilities and skills, but also give them something

completely different. For example, a screw is a cultural object because it contains

the action of physical forces is transformed into a result that would otherwise (i.e.

cannot be obtained by any addition or simple continuation of them. IN

the laws of science, systems of equations and methods can also be considered to play a similar role

their decisions, etc. in relation, of course, to the faculties of the mind and perception.

But, from this point of view, the problem of distinguishing between material and

spiritual culture. There is simply a problem of culture. And understood this way

science is also culture, since by “culture” I mean a certain unified

a cross-section passing through all spheres of human activity (artistic,

moral, etc. etc.) and formally, typologically common to them in the sense

a certain subject-sign mechanism, and not content. We can

consider scientific entities as complex transformers or

apparatus for transforming our natural capabilities and abilities. A

this means that what we could not do as natural beings, we

we do as beings of culture in science - not by the direct action of the mind and perception,

namely, transformations, for which there must, of course, be “organs”

"tools". The problem from the point of view of maintaining the uniqueness of the human

phenomenon in the Universe and consists, as it seems to me, in the presence of such cultural

tools that incorporate something invented “for the first time and once” (science as

cognition). Without them, our conscious life and psyche, provided

natural processes would represent chaos and disorder, thereby excluding

ability to perform cognitive tasks.

laws, could not exist, be maintained and reproduced if

their basis would be only the capabilities naturally given to man

observation, psychological associations, reasoning, etc. Moreover,

the latter also depends on the concentration of energy of a certain human

a creature living at a certain point in space and time. I have in

seemingly a simple thing. Let's say if we are not attentive, then we have thoughts

we run away, if we are not passionate, then we cannot do the simplest things. And this

after all, natural processes. Data that arise historically and outside the individual

"organs" and "tools", the topic of which I introduced above, are precisely what are being built

in such a way as to ensure maximum invariance of the canalized

their strength regarding the randomness of natural processes and inevitable chaos,

which arises due to the repetition of these processes over time: in particular,

when our attention is scattered for purely physical reasons, the strength of emotions

cannot stay at one level of intensity for a long time; we can't have

a new thought with a simple desire for “something new”, we cannot be inspired simply

desire for inspiration, etc. and so on. Humanity in science, art, etc.

invented a kind of devices, “machines” (let’s call them ecstatic

machines) or cultural objects, the effects of which help to avoid

this in some transformation space they open (only in it

and symmetries and invariants are possible). Calling them "ecstatic" (better,

probably write: “ek-static”, using the prefix

"ek..." an indication of something being taken outside), I mean simply that

that the person in them is transferred to a more intense register of life and, being

"outside oneself", something in oneself, from there it takes possession and thereby for the first time develops into

as an ability, and the condition for this is phenomenologically

objective, structured given outside a person (for example, like a field)

the form of possibility of his condition, his “essential forces,” as he would put it

Marx. And mastering them through this form that strengthens us is only post festum

we call “abilities” (which are not actually given: there is no

predetermined knowledge of the “natural” set of abilities of the subject, and also,

how, in order to make economic processes intelligible, Marx had to

to destroy the idea of homo economicus, we need to destroy the ghost

homo sapiens as a certain pre-given entity with a ready-made set of needs

"mind" to understand processes and cultural phenomena). Ecstasizing

enhancing the capabilities and states of the human mental apparatus, they

transfer him to another dimension, to another way of being, lying outside

individual person and, moreover, being more meaningful and

more ordered than the empirical man himself. Let me give you an example.

Raphael's "Sistine Madonna" is not culture, it is a work of art.

But it, naturally, is also a cultural object to the extent that our

the relationship with him reproduces or gives birth to human qualities in us for the first time

possibilities that we did not have before contact with this picture. Possibilities

vision, understanding, etc. Vision and understanding of something in the world and in oneself, and not

this painting itself: the painting in this sense is not pictorial, but

constructive; therefore, considering culture as a collection of “cultural

values" as a kind of consumer goods to satisfy our

"spiritual" needs is completely inadequate to the nature of this phenomenon and is not

allows us to describe it - another reminder of the need to dissolve

concepts like homo economicus or homo sapiens. Product - always

a unique item contained in one copy, it is unique and

unchanged. He always remains himself. Like this language ("internal

form") as such - and a separate language as such, and not a language in general.

This is what happened one day and after which the “world of the Madonna” arose, in which

we continue to live, but as cultural (“capable”) beings.

Same cultural site is, for example, Ohm's law, applied

in electrical engineering. But the act of creating works of art or products

scientific creativity and their presence as culture are two different things. We are in

the culture of what the artist did, but he himself as an artist is no longer there. His

cannot be determined by us or... culture. Science, like art, contains

itself an element of the possible and for the first time, only once established. In that

creativity is located in the pre-cultural (or rather, a-cultural) gap -

creativity of new forms from the possible studied by science, from the potentiated

being. By "creativity", therefore, we understand such an act, for the first time

after which we can only talk about the world in terms of laws and norms

(and compare them as existing in the world with cognition, with the situation of the knower

subject, with subjective reflections in his head, etc.). But that means

that we cannot speak about the form itself either deductively or normatively, or

in terms of “discovery” (discovery of something previous).

This aspect of the creativity of new forms in science, this role of form-transformers

as unique individuals contained in one copy of a work,

usually in science they are not noticed or not recognized, attributing the presence of unique

individual works only to art. But in reality only a screen of ready-made

mental products organized (according to the norms of scientific presentation) in

logical connection of truths, empirical verifications, rules of establishment

different levels of correlation between the formal apparatus and physical

interpretations and other systematizations, prevents one from seeing beyond the products of science

also science as an activity, as an act. A work of art (forever

living, endlessly interpretable, inseparable from its unique

“how”, etc.) is usually contained within the visible framework of the “text” made. IN

in science it is contained outside such visible frameworks, but it exists and lives so

is real (creating, of course, monstrous difficulties for historical and scientific

reconstruction). Such formations, for example, as differential

representation of motion at a point and an infinite inertial frame of reference,

are certainly product forms (with their corresponding

cognitive act in its entirety, with all conditions, premises and

levels). They can be called “producing works”, since it is precisely

in them there occur syntheses of the conscious life of the mind and the coherence of its multitude

states that are far removed from one another in the real spread of empirical

thinking subjects according to the spatial and temporal coordinates of societies and

cultures - just as syntheses and coherence of our skills occur, or

aesthetic relationships through the shape of a lever or the architectural form of a dome

vault. This can be called the sphere of consciousness (as the ultimate form of a spiral).

So, along the way, I actually got another definition of science as

something cultural, which can be the source and foundation of culture. It

following: it is something that a person regards as more highly

orderly and meaningful, more whole than himself, and which pulls out

it from the chaos, decay and dispersion of ordinary, everyday life, from

spontaneous relationships to the world and to one’s own kind. You just have to try to avoid

everyday associations with the words “more valuable”, “high”, etc. I have in

in mind in this case only a comparison of order with chaos and the properties of those

created by science, new forms, which were mentioned above and which live their

life in space and time, compacting and, as it were, transversely, along

vertical, structuring the set of states and acts of thought that

horizontally given in the real span of cultures and empirical life

individuals and is carried out at extended distances from one another and

randomly

Now we can take on a new basis the same problems that were

delivered, but which, perhaps, in the form that I gave them, are not enough

noticeable. Let us therefore try to identify them more clearly, clinging to the already

the flashing theme of “possible” and “for the first time and only once” happening.

In fact, what I have said so far about the relationship between science and culture, or

about science as culture, there is only an explication and design of what everyone has

of us intuition. Precisely intuition, and not what we know about science.

Intuitively, we are under science, or, more precisely, under abstract curiosity,

because activity begins with it, which then leads to some kind of scientific

results, we understand something that seems to pull us out of the spontaneous everyday

life, makes you detached from it. From the accidents of special vicissitudes, from

accidents of culture, from the accident of our mental appearance, given

to us by the act of birth. In other words, in a state of "curiosity" we hope

to acquire some position that would have the meaning of something in our eyes

more integral and meaningful, would attach our life to this latter,

more universal (and at the same time more personal) than cash

the empirical state of society, culture and ourselves. What about knowledge about science? IN

in terms of this knowledge we talk, for example, about its multiply connected dependence

from society and culture, we see how any intellectual act performed in

society, involves the one who commits it in thousands of people escaping from him

dependencies and connections that are objective for him; we can describe

the logical structure of science in its connection with experimental and

readings from our instruments and sense organs, tongue, etc. But this

“knowledge about” itself is a certain culture, and we, living in the same world, give

I will report this to myself in another way. In other words, in its terms we accept

some ready-made and complete world of laws and essences along with its

logic (and it is some existing knowledge), which we then compare

with his reflections. And, seeing and organizing the results of this reflection, we do not see

science behind them as a productive activity, as an activity in

which is the only thing we are alive for. The latter is, as it were, crushed by us into dimensionless and

an ideal point connected to other similar points according to the norms of exact and

clear message scientific concepts and experience regulating scientific texts

(for example, in journal publications, in the acceptance of scientific projects by customers

etc.) and their circulation, use, etc. in culture62, which hides how

since what I called “works”, i.e. science as an actively ongoing and

productive reality. Or let me put it this way: it's natural,

objectified appearance of relationships, which itself presupposes

a certain phenomenological procedure for suspending the

meanings and trains of thought to reveal what is really happening, what

we actually experience in science, in the act of Thought, what is told to us

intuition of the meaning of this experience and what “world state” we are in

where we are, and how we have decided in relation to the world, when in fact (and not in

verbal imitation) we perform an act of cognition. Only after carrying out this procedure,

you can see the problem in a new light and then return to dependencies, oh

which knowledge about science tells us. Taking this into account and accepting it as

starting point intuition, I want to show further that science as knowledge and

science as culture are fundamentally different things, different elements in

as part of a single entity.

Science as a culture is normative. It presupposes certain

structural or, as I said, cultural mechanisms that amplify

natural forces, human energy and, having amplified, transform them

action into a result that naturally cannot be obtained. In that

in a sense, the productive role of the “machine of science” is the same as art and other

types of cultural activities. But this is a structure that has become normative. Between

How does the universe of knowledge correlate with what a scientist can

to be, for example, Russian, Georgian, American or someone else and

transform natural human powers and capabilities (without which it is impossible

the universal content of the laws of science is reproduced) in that way, in that

a mechanism that has developed and exists in a given culture and not in another?

Indeed, in another culture another form-transformer is conceivably possible.

For example, although it is still almost universal across all cultures, we

We move using the principle of the wheel. But this is an accident from the point of view

laws of physics! There is no necessity arising from physical laws

movement, so that we necessarily move or roll something on wheels,

the laws only allow this along with many other things, and yet, despite

colossal progress of technology, from ancient times to the present 20th century. All

the possibilities of earthly movement that we imagine, their “horizon” remains

inside a wheel, invented by someone unknown in ancient times. I

At the same time, I am distracted from attempts to travel in our time by air or

magnetic pads, which can become a fundamentally different culture.

Physical laws, I repeat, do not depend on this. It does not follow from them

the need for wheels. Just like, on the contrary, from Maxwell's laws

implies the existence of waves of any frequency, and not just the one

resolvable by the device of our vision and hearing or our instruments. What

such knowledge then?

It seems to me that knowledge is always living, relevant (and thus

the most ontological) element within science, taken as a whole,

characterized by two oscillatory movements: sideways oscillation

destruction of normative structures, reaching a certain “zero” state

knowledge and, conversely, the reverse movement from neutral, almost “zero”

state towards a new possible structure. And so on all the time. This

experimentation with forms, not the forms themselves.

When we talk about knowledge, we mean, in my opinion, something like this

that at every given moment exists and at every given moment in its

products disappears. It is as if flickering and, therefore, having

proper depths (or "regions") the point around which crystallizes

all new deposit-structures (which we then build into an independent

row above these depths and, of course, hiding them, “dying”, as I already

said). To be more clear, I will refer to the ban on plagiarism, which is understandable to everyone.

science. As you know, plagiarism is the repeated presentation of what has already been done -

others or even yourself (if, of course, we ignore the legal

sides of the case). Although we always present science as something already known, no one

after all, he doesn’t call a consolidated textbook or an explanation of a separate theory plagiarism

in teaching. But knowledge by definition (although this constantly disappearing in

in their products, the moment is difficult to grasp in vivo) is present at every given moment,

in any given study, doing something that was not thought or done

before, for which there is no rule or reason (for the presence of a reason is precisely

and would already mean thoughtfulness - due to irreversibility); and in this sense it

regardless of the rest of the world of knowledge (which is precisely what appears in

that phenomenologically reducible cultural connection that I spoke about

higher). And we intuitively recognize it as such, i.e. as

"Sciences". These are states of space and time that are changes

"environment" and independent of space and time (they themselves are not

spatial and not non-spatial, and highlighting this is

it is in the concept of an event; "electron" as a state - one on Sirius and on

Earth). Moreover, this independence from the rest of the world of knowledge

(by the way, all intuitionistic mathematics grew out of its understanding) means

and the “present effect” specifically inherent in science as knowledge

(analyzed in terms of the entire volume of the sphere of states and structures of consciousness,

and not cultural-sign systems and visual continuity “in” the flow

time). I want to say by this that an innovative cognitive act

is accomplished only by containing and reproducing in itself, “at the point” the conditions and

internal connections of all science as a whole. And in this sense, knowledge is all in

present, irreversibly excluding the possibility of the world returning to its former

state. Only after this does the world receive an overarching logical

space in which they unfold in sequence fundamentally

reversible logical connections between thinking and the state of observation. This is the mechanism

changes in such space, i.e. it can come out of this "present"

completely different, but will still be a covering, reversible space.

Thus, in the moment of which I speak, something is constantly being done

fundamentally different from the development of existing theories and formulas in textbooks

and various kinds of systematizations of scientific knowledge. Acceptable in the science building

only what happens for the first time and only once. But this is not culture! Because to

This feature is not applicable to culture. Culture by definition, as I said,

is something that is encoded, broadcast or reproduced. The science -

productive, culture is reproductive.

Science contains, therefore, a special element - knowledge, which

its irreversibility, “present effect”, etc. that's all that makes it science

in comparison with culture and brings drama and dynamics to life

human society. It is constantly pulsating, life-giving and

at the same time the deadening principle of culture; a certain "two-faced Janus", one

on its side representing the overcoming of any existing human

experience and different from it, and the other - personifying this experience itself, reversibly

organized. To paraphrase a well-known expression, I would say in this regard

so: only he has the right to be called a scientist or talk about his scientific character

science, who, by actualizing “all science in the present,” is able to see

transpersonal and ever present living, hic et nunc, actual meaning in

the source of one's cognitive power or intellectual skill. This one is alive

meaning is what distinguishes thinking from ideology (the construction of which does not require it,

does not “drag” along). After all, science from the very beginning is an enterprise,

trying to answer the question - what is the world like in itself, regardless of

layers of cultural-sign systems and mechanisms superimposed on it, not

not to mention ideological systems. Just by looking at it this way

science, we can now resolve the contradiction with which we began our

reasoning. Namely: the contradiction between the content of intellectual

transformations that make up science, and the existence of these formations in their

cultural density, "physicality".

Approaching the culture-forming function of science allows us to do otherwise

look at the very structure of a human being, take it, so

to say, not in natural appearance, but culturally and historically. Looking at

it is so, we involuntarily ask the question: how do we, in fact, know?

Our senses? But these are natural formations that have

specific dimension of a human being. And it is, as we said,

capable of formulating universal laws that are beyond any dimension.

How so? Could it really be a worm, if it had consciousness, or some kind of

would a Martian formulate different laws? Implicit in our scientific pursuits

contains the premise that these would be the same laws, i.e. unrelated

the coincidence that we or a Martian are observing them. But we must

be able to observe them in order to then formulate them.

So how do we know? It seems to me that if you think through the idea of

culture-forming function of science or scientific knowledge, then we will understand that we

we perceive through organs that are not given to us by nature, but that arise and are given in

space of thought, which transfers a person into the cosmic dimension, which

cuts through every difference and extension of cultures and connects - in addition to this

horizontally - vertically a human being with the possibilities of the Universe,

which, as it were, allows itself to be known and guides us better than we ourselves could

would do this. Speaking about such prompts from nature, about the direction of thought, I

I mean approximately what N. Bohr said at one time, following I. Kant

in a conversation with W. Heisenberg, arguing that the basis of various possibilities

of our logic, of our knowledge, lie certain fundamental forms,

which belong to reality independently of us and control evolution

thoughts beyond the random statistical selection of the most “adapted”

or “successful”63. But I want to emphasize that these are the forms in which

The universe exists as objective structures that are connected

with the human presence in it, weave a person, regardless of him

itself, into end-to-end information flows, cutting through with their loops and

cycles past and future and meeting us at the point of the present where we

We apply consciousness and deliberate individual, purposeful will

we control the forces, but where, in fact, it is the completeness of the act that works,

the collection of all its parts and conditions in the “eternal present”, in the “eternally new”.

This is, in fact, a sphere in relation to the action of these forces, to ourselves in

this point (if we take an analogy with the use of the concepts “biosphere” and

"noosphere"), "fan-like" stretching (and connecting) it through the human

"I" to some finite region. Descartes would call this the fullness of the will

(-being), where “I” is not an ideal point, but an area of duration and identity

Historical analysis of science shows, for example, that only practically, with

hard to crystallize and require hints or guidance

the indicated sphere, occurs in the activity of Galileo, looking through a telescope at

stellar bodies, the formation of precisely those organs that can confirm and

experimentally resolve those visible universal qualities of the world, which before Galileo

no one saw and who irreversibly turned our eyes to the side

direct consideration of the Galilean picture of the world, and not another.

They are not present separately either in Galileo as an empirical individual or in the telescope,

but they exist together with the history of science and its culture-forming, with difficulty and in

time manifesting itself as activity. So, with full awareness of the essence of the matter,

talking about the need to “remake people’s brains”, and not refute this or that

“feelings more sublime and perfect than the ordinary and natural”64.

Therefore, we can draw the following conclusion. The very possibility of our knowledge

something in the world depends on how much we ourselves are those who

overcame nature, i.e. presupposes, as the ancients said, our “second

birth." Or, in modern language, involves an effort to master

the sphere of the observable psyche (i.e. fusions of artificial and natural,

dynamics of the so-called second nature), the desire to cognize and break through

which itself is, as is known, one of the main constitutive

elements of modern culture.

There is apparently no other way to resolve our contradiction. But if that's the case,

then science as knowledge, as the ability to formulate universal

physical laws are, obviously, something that is connected not just with a person, but with

possible person. There is a very interesting phrase about this in

Shakespeare's Hamlet. Ophelia, turning to the king, says: "We know who

We are such, but we do not know what we can be" (Act IV, scene 5).

So, this connection with the possible, not with an existing person, but always with

possible, it, in my opinion, is decisive from the point of view of implementation

cognition and the process of crystallization of culture. Ophelia spoke about her,

of course, not in the context of some complex philosophical or scientific

reasoning. Those who dealt with Hamlet at the time it was written

and it was staged, they understood what was going on. All you have to do is look inside yourself to

to see that there is a possible, but unknown to me, self, and there is a self that is

known. Only this possible I is always nothing: not this, not this, etc. And so

no less without it, if we return to our topic, without such “not this, not this”

It is obviously impossible to adequately define science, i.e. so that she is

a meaningful activity that corresponds to one’s own aspirations.

After all, its goal is to obtain universal knowledge that would not depend on

man, is achievable only because science itself produces the subject

this knowledge, which is in no way committed to her cause and will never

is not molded into any final image. Moreover, observation of life and

the opinions of an empirical individual, "Newton" cannot tell us anything about

creation of Newtonian mechanics for the simple reason that the author of this

the work (in the sense in which I spoke about it earlier) is itself produced

in the space of this work, extracted by its creation from the depths of man

"Newton", about which the latter knew nothing or knew all sorts of trifles (he

self-reported). Therefore, explaining the image of a “possible person”, one can

to say that the actual subject as the bearer and measure of knowledge and as a product

development is the postponement of the search - through what is actually knocked down, constructive

the work is of the possible, of the other, and the search goes further and into each given

moment only it is science as knowledge.

Thus, on the one hand, science - and we have it from the very beginning

emphasized - has no dimension, no predetermined theme, but

now, on the other hand, we see that she still has them in the form of a certain

a field outlined by the dynamics of the double image of a person; fields into which we

we enter if we begin to engage in science, and in which we live and develop

as thinking beings. In this sense, science, like art, etc., is

man-made areas where experimentation with

human possibilities, with a possible person. Culture is always there

one or another, but already realized opportunity. And live, develop,

it can change historically within its own framework only to the extent

to the extent that it is capable of integrating and cumulatively

preserve the products of free “dimensionless” creative actions, i.e. In that

the extent to which it is open to the “reservoir” of development and change that embraces it

"background" of active being, which is not itself. And precisely because,

besides culture, there are areas of experimentation with possible images

man, with his possible place in space (and he should occupy it there,

otherwise the understanding of what is said or seen about space will disappear), and

there is a condition for the well-known fact of multiplicity (and, as they say

now, complementarity) of crops. But it is paradoxical and does not follow from

the nature of culture as such. Why are there many cultures and not just one? And not

only a lot, but they also change, die, are born...

As is well known, these were the initial philosophical questions,

with which a person has generally set himself. Namely, firstly, why a lot, and not

one? Since this question was asked and philosophizing began, i.e.

for the first time, the world under the human veil began to open up with him

cultural-sign systems - the world as it is, without any anthropocentrism, and

I tried to carry out the motive of this questioning in terms of my topic. See one

in many ways - a gift from the gods to people - this is how Plato summed it up in his time. AND,

secondly: why is there something at all, and not nothing? Because the problem

I took the relationship between thought and culture against the background of the existence of order and disorder,

I will try to look into this issue.

When a person asks: why is there something and not nothing, he finds himself in

primary philosophical situation - in a situation of surprise imbued with desire

understand, in general, the complete randomness, groundlessness and conventionality of

that there is at least some order in the world: sometimes there is knowledge, sometimes there is beauty,

sometimes - justice, sometimes - goodness, sometimes - understanding, etc. That is, I

I want to say that a person as a philosopher is surprised not by disorder, not by chaos -

this is not a subject of philosophical surprise, but namely that something is still

there is, and asks, how can it be if it is impossible? Is it "something" or

the tendency towards reproduction in the world and in man is based on absolutely nothing

based orderings, which has cultural consequences, is

defining. I emphasize: orders that are not based on anything

and are not guaranteed in any way in the sense that their duration and stay require

something additional, that they do not rely on natural ones, of course

realized, grounds or continuously operating connections of causes and

consequences, but must be carried out anew all the time by someone (which is quite

confirms our normal intuition that all cognition is

present).

I will refer to a moral phenomenon as an illustration. At first sight,

this example has nothing to do with science. But remember what we are looking at

science is not a unique education. The ancients understood this well. Not

by chance, in one step of philosophical reasoning, they combined truth, goodness and

beauty. Therefore, it was not a combination of disciplines - aesthetics, ethics and

ontology, but was an expression of nature itself in such an amazing way

the existence of everything with which a person deals and in which comes true and is fulfilled,

when being exists to the extent that there is an understanding of it in being itself, there is

effort to maintain and reproduce it.

Ancient philosophers argued that evil happens by itself, but good is necessary.

do it on purpose and all the time anew, it, even when done, does not itself

abides, does not exist. This conclusion, it seems to me, is equally

also applies to our definition of science. That is, on the one hand, to science

as knowledge (this flickering, pulsating point associated with the possible

person and requiring constant, special effort), and on the other hand,

to science as culture itself (in the sense of human-forming action

structures that order the chaos of life).

The whole complexity of the philosophical understanding of the problem of the relationship between science and

culture, as well as the problem of good and evil, lies precisely in the fact that

one of the concepts of these pairs is very difficult to grasp ontologically. After all, for us,

for example, goodness necessarily appears in some norm. There is a standard of goodness

in comparison with which evil is measured. But this norm, although it is always

exists, the philosopher in the course of analysis is forced to ignore, as it were, since

he tries to identify the conditions of all morality, all concrete acts of goodness,

like any truth outside of any norms.

By analogy with this, I sought to show that science as knowledge is

also a kind of condition for the presence of any cultural structures, which is not

at the same time, none of them herself. There is a norm of ancient science, science

XVII century, XIX century, etc., localized in a certain culture of such and such

time. However, the conditions of its existence (which themselves are not any of

these norms) are not localizable - they are included in the very definition of content

scientific phenomenon, i.e. knowledge.

So, the norms or normative orientation of scientific thought, culture-forming

the function of science cannot be understood without understanding the hidden conditions of it all.

Otherwise, we find ourselves in an insoluble contradiction, which will simply not be possible.

I agree with our normal intuition. And intuition tells us that scientific

the understanding of anything cannot depend on the accident of what

a thought is thought and produced by someone in such and such a culture or in such and such

society.

1 See: Malakhov B.A. For whom are we writing? (About literary targeting

philosophical texts), 1988, $1; Mezhuev V.M. Troubles and hopes of our philosophy,

1988, $2, etc.

2 “Ostranenie” - a term introduced into poetics by V. Shklovsky, means

description in work of art a person, an object as a phenomenon, as

seen for the first time, and therefore acquiring new characteristics.

3 This refers to the poem by D. Kharms (1906-1942) “What was that?”

I walked along the swamp in winter

In galoshes,

And with glasses.

Suddenly someone rushed along the river

On metal hooks.

I ran quickly to the river,

And he ran into the forest,

He attached two planks to his feet,

Jumped

And for a long time I stood by the river,

And I thought for a long time, taking off my glasses:

"How strange

And incomprehensible

4 See: Lefebvre V.A. Conflicting structures. M., 1967.

5 We are talking about the book "The Ghost in the Atom, Discussion of the Mysteries

of Quantum Physics". Ed. by P.C.Davies and J.R.Brown. Cambridge, 1986, See:

Kobzarev I.Yu. Mysteries of quantum mechanics, "Nature", 1988, $1.

6 We may recall in this regard the discussion on the problem of surveillance in

quantum mechanics and according to the anthropic criterion in cosmology, which showed

the fundamental involvement of consciousness in the processes of cognition of the physical

reality.

7 I also used the literary translation by V. Mikushevich. See: Poetry

Europe in three volumes. T. 2. M., 1979, p. 221.

8 Zombie - living dead, ghost, werewolf.

9 Garcia Lorca F. Romance about the Spanish gendarmerie. - Favorites. M., 1983,

10 Once certain conditions are created, certain phenomena follow from

them independently of a person, due to the objective properties of the objects themselves

human practice. Man could obtain heat through friction and

for the first time to realize the need for them to follow each other based on their

material actions (see: Marx K., Engels F. Soch., T. 20, p. 539), but

heat itself follows from friction, once it has already been produced, regardless of

person.

11 Therefore, when applied to any content of this kind,

regardless of its empirical certainty, regardless of what

it is the empirical content, for example, that is composed of parts and which

it is empirical objects that are its parts.

12 In what follows, for the sake of brevity, we will denote this relationship as

“coordination” or as a “part-whole” connection, although the latter is not entirely accurate:

we are not talking about the connection of a part with the whole as a special object, but about the connection of parts,

that is, about the connection of objects, which, in turn, are a single object. Under

“chain” here actually means the connection properties of objects that are different

on the properties of communication elements.

13 This was also noted by Hegel, and moreover in application to “totality”, that is

to the organic whole. He believed that the dialectical method in “each of its

movement is at the same time analytical and synthetic" (Works, vol. 1, p. 342).

14 And in this sense, analysis as the identification of “general”, “abstract

definitions" (reduction of various phenomena to their abstract unity)

relates to our problem of analysis and synthesis.

15 “The reality of philosophizing,” says Jaspers, “consists not

in an objective result, but in a position of consciousness" ("Philosophie", Bd. I, S.

16 Universal labor is that labor which is socially appropriated

people (1) regardless of the actual implementation of personal contacts and

communication, direct compatibility in work; (2) regardless of effort and

the mental effort required to initially produce it

(it is therefore universal and disproportionately easy to master

a property similar to the free productive power of nature); (3) as

the united force of people's cooperation, like a new multiplied productive

the power generated by this very exchange of activity and surpassing the possibilities

purely individual efforts or their simple sum. “By universal labor,” wrote

Marx, is every scientific work, every discovery, every invention.

It is due partly to the cooperation of contemporaries, partly to the use of labor

predecessors" ("Capital". - K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, vol. 25, p. 116).

The universality of labor is here also the universality of cooperation in labor, including

including historical, since it is carried out in content.

17 In philosophy we are talking “about mental formations,” writes Jaspers, “

which, having arisen in personal life, exist as an appeal to

singular" ("Philosophie", Bd. I, S. XXV) and are "persuasive and

reliable only by the force of the personal appearance of their conceivability" ("Die grossen

Philosophen", S. 62).

18 Jaspers has a way of connecting new activities with past ones

characterized in fact by the following main features: 1) transmission

subjective skill in addition to the content of the product of activity; 2)

"guidance" (F(hrung) of great figures; 3) the expression of the entire theory as a whole

with all its questions and sections in each individual thinker, unlike

private nature of any labor in cooperation. And these are undoubted features

guild craft. It is interesting to note that in the craft, in "teaching", it

secrets passed from person to person, the past always appears as

the unattainable example of the gaze is directed back (hence Jaspers’ reduction of the problem

philosophical work to the history of philosophy: "We are, of course, far from

Plato..."). In the same way, it is precisely the incoherence and fragmentation of individual

links of spiritual production, their spontaneous accumulation next to each other

friend and their individual limitations gave rise, for example, here

the need in each “atom” to have the whole whole of existing achievements.

The "integrity" of a theoretical development (or a craft "masterpiece") is

here is actually a stagnant form of ensuring continuity and preservation

fruits of development.

19 Sartre J.-P. Critique de la raison dial(ctique, vol. I. Paris, 1960.

20 Hence the features of social utopianism in the ideas of existentialism about

"true humanity"; their actually utopian character is

source of deeply religious overtones of existentialism: it develops in

as a result, or religious in content, attitude towards the dominant

reality (coming to the moral and ethical principles known from religion

attitudes and moods, to religious psychological schemes - to a cult

suffering, redemption, to a sense of painful responsibility, paralyzing

person, to frenzied moods and visions, etc.) or religious

form - in the sense of producing fantasies, illusory, mythologized

ideas about real phenomena and processes of reality, in the sense

a way of thinking about reality that reproduces it

properties according to the laws of mythological and anthropomorphic forms of consciousness,

mystifying them. We will deal mainly with this second side of the matter.

21 Or social being and consciousness, where being is primary,

defining, forming, directing, etc., and consciousness is secondary.

22 Quoted. based on recordings of Sartre's conversations with representatives of the Czech intelligentsia in

1963 in Prague; see also: Sartre J.-P. Critique de la raison dial(ctique,

vol. 1, p. 43 - 44.

23 What are the guidelines and objective milestones for this?

the individual's design of himself is another matter.

24 "Social regularity" (as a special type of regularity,

different from natural) there is generally only a dependence of people on products and

results of their own activities, from what they developed in joint

relation to the nature of the content, there is a dependence on the historical character

and stages of development socially developed and only in social form

realized abilities and “essential forces” of individuals.

25 This phenomenological aspect can be illustrated by the following

an extract from the text of the above-mentioned conversation of Sartre in Prague, when he, in

in particular, he answered the question of how much his current point of view has changed

view in comparison with that set out in the work “Being and Nothingness”: “There is

a certain truth given by the description of what consciousness itself achieves

yourself. I have not changed in saying this. For example, if you realize

pleasure, then you have it. Maybe the reason is different than the one

which you attribute to him, but this pleasure, whatever its

origin is “existing” pleasure as determined by consciousness

yourself. Under these conditions you can describe the structure of this data

consciousness. I was inspired by Husserl's phenomenological descriptions. Beneath them

he understood the pre-dialectical method, for his idea, when he recorded and

described some entity (whatever it may be) was that it

Structured whole."

26 Sartre defines specifically human activity as

activities to give objects personal and practical “living”

"meanings", "sense". Starting with the statement that “it is absurd to reduce the meaning

object to the simple inert materiality of this object itself..." (Sartre

J.-P. Critique de la raison dialectique, p. 96), Sartre further writes: “Man

is for himself and for others a meaning-giving being, since

even the slightest of his gestures can never be understood without going beyond

pure present and without explaining it to the future. Moreover, it is the creator

signs, to the extent that, being always ahead of himself, he

uses certain objects to represent other objects,

absent or future. But both operations come down to a simple

and pure transcendence: to go beyond the present conditions to their

subsequent change and go beyond the given object to some

absence is the same thing. Man constructs signs, because by the very

of his reality he is a meaning-giving being, and he is

such due to the fact that it is a dialectical going beyond the limits of

what is simply given. What we call freedom is the irreducibility of order

culture to the order of nature" (Ibid., p. 96). "Because we are people and because

we live in a world of people, labor and conflicts, all the objects surrounding us,

are signs" (Ibid., p. 97). Perhaps more transparent and

Sartre gave a plastic formulation precisely in his “Prague Conversations” 1963

g.: “A movement that gives meaning,” he said, “a natural fact becomes

a mediator of communication between people... A person cannot be anything

other than what circumstances force him to be, but his freedom consists

in the transformation of raw data into practical meaning, and it is not reducible to

conditioning. I left the abstract and isolationist point of view of "Being"

and nothing" while remaining true to the spirit of this study." Note for

subsequent that, firstly, Sartre fixes only two elements here

relations - the purely material form of an object and its practically individual

human "meaning", "meanings" - and that, secondly, social relations

people acting with objects must then be defined as communications

this “sense” and “meaning”, how to unravel them, “understand”, etc.,

possessing a certain logic (as long as these relations remain

human and are not absorbed by things).

27 This phenomenon emerges very clearly in the way, for example, modernist

art and psychoanalysis use material forms and symbols.

The artistic form, i.e. a certain material construction, receives,

for example, the function of direct transmission of reality (in addition to content), and

in fact - ontologized mental states.

28 Sartre J.-P. Op. cit., p. 98.

29 Sartre J.-P. Ibid.

30 Sartre J.-P. Ibid., p. 101 - 102.

31 Based on the “meanings” and “sense” (the “signs” of which are

material objects, tools, etc.) here not only the relationship is determined

to external reality and the position of the individual in it, but also the course of construction

the individual himself as a person, collecting himself into a “project” unit, i.e.

The design of oneself by an individual unfolds, according to existentialism, in

depending on what “sense” and “meaning” are given to things and

circumstances, biological dependencies, etc.

32 “Our formalism,” says Sartre, “which was inspired by formalism

Marx, consists simply in reminding that man makes history exactly in that

the same extent to which she does it" (Sartre J.-P. Ibid., p. 180).

33 Sartre J.-P. Ibid., p. 206.

34 Ibid., p. 249.

35 Ibid., p. 247.

36 Ibid., p. 256 - 257.

37 Ibid., p. 279.

38 Ibid., p. 241.

39 Ibid., p. 158. According to Sartre, human relationships are discrete, inert

multiplicity, since people are not connected by interpersonal contacts

(interpenetration of their consciousness and “understanding” of love, hatred, desires and

etc.) or do not share the same emotional state.

40 Sartre considers Marxism to be the recognition of the decisive significance of this fact and

evaluates himself as a Marxist precisely depending on his agreement with this. But in

What is really important is what exactly is meant by social

matter.

41 Marx in connection with a similar interpretation of “human relations”

Feuerbach noted that here “the attitude of people to nature is excluded, which

an opposition is created between nature and history" (Marx K., Engels F.

Soch., vol. 3, p. 38). This could not be more accurately true of Sartre's entire

concepts.

42 Sartre J.-P. Op. cit., p. 206.

43 Sartre J.-P. Ibid., p. 360.

44 Sartre J.-P. Ibid., p. 86.

45 Sartre J.-P. Ibid. p. 219 - 220.

46 Sartre J.-P. Ibid., p. 180.

47 Sartre J.-P. Ibid., p. 428.

48 See Ibid., p. 381 ff.

49 Sartre J.-P. Ibid., p. 644.

50 Ibid., p. 260.

51 "If Marx did not leave Logic (with a capital L), then he left

the logic of “Capital”..." (Lenin V.I. Complete collected works, vol. 29, p. 301).

52 It is interesting and important that Marx simultaneously builds a theory

objective (economic) process and the theory of its reflection in the heads

his immediate agents, examining and criticizing non-individual mistakes and

delusions of consciousness (although this also occurs), and with necessity

emerging objective mental expressions of a real process. He

derives and determines the conditions under which they necessarily appear in

the latter "transformed expressions" (verwandelte Formen).

53 Unfortunately, they are often known to the philosophical public only in this

false form.

54 Further exposition requires a clear understanding of what is available

meant by the “philosophy of self-consciousness” characteristic of the classics. Beginning with

Descartes assumed that philosophy determines conscious conditions

cognitive thinking, revealing how the contents of consciousness

(whether this consciousness affects the process of thought, behavior, interests or

human feelings) can be reproduced and recorded both from the very

began a consciously controlled, purposeful construction of an object,

having as its starting point some naturally existing

coincidence of thought and object, some “true state of affairs”, already

existing before the actual restructuring of the spontaneous process of consciousness

(for example, Descartes' cogito ergo sum, "I am I" of the German classical

philosophy, etc.). Is this point supposed to actually exist or

research convention, the whole process appears as teleological

organized, taking place within the framework of “pure consciousness” (that is,

non-empirical consciousness, purified and refined by self-consciousness). For

classics, any type of consciousness seemed comparable to this striving for

coincidence with reality by consciousness and therefore was considered according to

analogies with it, as an approach to it, etc.

55 Meanwhile, in our philosophical literature there is a very successful example

objective, carried out in the spirit of Marx analysis of subjective

formations on purely objective phenomena of economic systems. We have in

kind of attempt made by E.V. Ilyenkov in relation to the analysis of nature

ideal (see "Philosophical Encyclopedia", vol. II, article "Ideal").

56 “Going beyond phenomena” here does not mean taking, in epistemological

sense, the internal dimension underlying the phenomenon, the internal mechanism

object as independent of the social activity that gives rise to the phenomenon.

On the contrary, we are talking about explaining the mechanism that

gives rise to a phenomenon in it as an essential “form of its reality, or,

more precisely, the form of its actual existence" (Marx K., Engels F. Soch.,

vol. 26, part III, p. 507).

57 Consequently, the contents of consciousness are given (found) simultaneously and in

in a different place, in a different form than in the consciousness of the psychological,

reflective, connecting his conscious manifestations with the unity of “I”

individual, namely in the social system of activity. Possibility to measure

consciousness at the same time and for something other than consciousness itself is essential

requirement of the Marxian procedure.

58 Marx's analysis often deals with such practical

visibility. For example, considering the definitions acquired by capital in

process of circulation and in relationship with other capitals, Marx shows

that the theoretical view that every part of capital is equally

produces profit, expresses a practical fact, and in order to get away from it, one must

it would be possible to take the entire total capital, but for the capitalist this is a mystery. IN

In this sense, awareness is the emergence of objective appearance (interestingly,

that from the point of view of the practical fact of consciousness is precisely the actual

internal communication turns out to be a mystery).

59 Cause and effect here are not uniform; the first one is not saved in the second one

as it contains detectable content.

60 Here we have a relation similar to that which Marx

establishes in acts of real economic behavior of persons. Let us remind you

words spoken by Marx in the preface to Capital, with which he wanted

to prevent possible misunderstandings in this regard: “The figures of the capitalist and

I don’t paint the land owner in a rosy light. But here's the thing

is about persons only insofar as they are personifications

interests. I look at the development of an economic social formation as

natural history process; so from my point of view, less than

any other individual may be held responsible for those

conditions, the product of which in the social sense it remains, no matter how

it rose above them subjectively" (ibid., p. 10).

61 “Non-classical” - in the same sense as in modern physics

talks about the difference between classical and non-classical physical

objects. Similar to the situation as it has established itself today in

physics, in philosophy (primarily in ontology), one can also distinguish

classical and modern, non-classical philosophy.

62 One can well imagine that the norms for presenting scientific truths in

publications and messages might be different in another culture. Anyway

case, there is no doubt that the norms that we focus on in our

logical culture, do not cover the entire corpus relevant for reconstruction

history of text knowledge.

63 See: Heisenberg W. Der Teil und das Ganze. M(nchen, 1976, S. 155 -

64 Galileo G. Izbr. works in 2 volumes. T.I.M., 1964, p. 423.

1989, $2, p. 29 - 36.

4 Report given at the Institute of Philosophy of the CCCP Academy of Sciences in December 1987.

8 Speech at the “Round table” on the topic “Interaction between science and

1989, p. 263 - 269.

10 Speech at the “Round Table on the topic: “Phenomenology and its role in

11 Report made at the III All-Union School on the Problem of Consciousness.

12 Speech at the “Round Table” on the topic “Science, ethics, humanism.”

15 Speech at the “Round Table” on the topic “Literature and

literary and artistic criticism in the context of philosophy and social science."

27, as well as in: "Spring" railway station. Riga, 1989, $ 11, p. 45 - 49.

Definition of science.

Special view cognitive activity aimed at developing objective, systematically organized and substantiated knowledge about the world. Interacts with other types of cognitive activity: everyday, artistic, religious, mythological, philosophical. comprehension of the world. Like all types of knowledge, N. arose from the needs of practice and regulates it in a special way. N. aims to identify essential connections (laws) according to which objects can be transformed in the process of human activity. Any objects that can be transformed by man - fragments of nature, social subsystems or society as a whole, states of human consciousness, etc. - can become objects scientific research. N. studies them as objects that function and develop according to their own natural laws. It can study a person as a subject of activity, but also as special object. The objective and objective way of viewing the world, characteristic of science, distinguishes it from other methods of cognition. For example, in art, the assimilation of reality always occurs as a kind of gluing together of the subjective and objective, when any reproduction of events or states of nature and social life presupposes their emotional assessment. Artistic image is always the unity of the general and the individual, the rational and the emotional. Scientific concepts are rational, highlighting the general and essential in the world of objects. Reflecting the world in its objectivity, N. provides only one slice of the diversity of the human world. Therefore, it does not exhaust the entire culture, but constitutes only one of the spheres that interacts with other spheres of cultural creativity - morality, religion, philosophy, art, etc. A sign of subjectivity and objectivity of knowledge is the most important characteristic N., but it is still insufficient to determine its specificity, since ordinary knowledge can also provide individual objective and objective knowledge. In contrast, N. is not limited to the study of only those objects, their properties and relationships that, in principle, can be mastered in the practice of the corresponding historical era. It is capable of going beyond the boundaries of each historically defined type of practice and opening up new ones for humanity object worlds, which can become objects of mass practical development only at future stages of the development of civilization. At one time G.V. Leibniz characterized mathematics as N. about possible worlds. In principle, this characteristic can be attributed to any fundamental N. Electromagnetic waves, nuclear reactions, coherent radiation of atoms were first discovered in physics, and these discoveries potentially laid a fundamentally new level of technological development of civilization, which was realized much later (technology of electric motors and electric generators, radio - and television equipment, lasers, nuclear power plants, etc.).

The place and role of science in culture

Today, science plays a role in modern society important role in many industries and spheres of people's lives. Undoubtedly, the level of development of science can serve as one of the main indicators of the development of society, and it is also, undoubtedly, an indicator of economic, cultural, civilized, educated, modern development states. Throughout the history of culture, people have developed various ways of understanding the world. Science is one of these ways of knowing, it arises in response to the need to obtain objective, true knowledge about the world and makes a significant contribution to the development of culture. But culture is also the most important condition for the development of scientific knowledge (mutual enrichment occurs). The influence of culture is expressed in: 1. The historical experience of man’s spiritual exploration of the world is concentrated in culture. The higher the cultural level of development of society, the more developed science.2. Culture largely determines the historical need of society for science and even the possibility of its development. (For example, the culture of the Renaissance. Nicholas of Cusa, ... completed by Newton).3. Through culture, a connection is established between scientific discoveries and the ability of the public consciousness to perceive these discoveries and give them a worthy assessment. Characteristics and features of science that distinguish it from other manifestations of culture. 1. Scientific knowledge is characterized by a special dynamism of development (striving for innovation, constant renewal), everything else looks like a conservative component. 2. Scientific activity is regulated by a cognitive goal. Other social goals (practical, ethical, educational) have secondary, applied significance.3. Scientific activity is based on the professionalism of its subjects.4. Scientific knowledge forms an extremely rationalized style of thinking and requires its constant application in research activities (and outside of research activities, it also works in everyday life).

3. Forms of worldview, their features. How do knowledge and reality relate?

Man is a rational social being. His activities are expedient. And in order to act expediently in the complex real world, he must not only know a lot, but also be able to do so. Be able to choose goals, be able to make this or that decision. To do this, he needs, first of all, a deep and correct understanding of the world - a worldview.

Man has always had a need to develop general idea about the world as a whole and about man’s place in it. This idea is usually called the universal picture of the world.

The universal picture of the world is a certain amount of knowledge accumulated by science and historical experience of people. A person always thinks about what his place is in the world, why he lives, what is the meaning of his life, why life and death exist; how to treat other people and nature, etc.

Every era, every social group and, therefore, every person has a more or less clear and distinct or vague idea of solving the issues that concern humanity. The system of these decisions and answers shapes the worldview of the era as a whole and of the individual. Answering the question about man’s place in the world, about man’s relationship to the world, people, on the basis of the worldview at their disposal, develop a picture of the world, which provides generalized knowledge about the structure, general structure, patterns of emergence and development of everything that in one way or another surrounds man .

Having general knowledge about his place in the world, a person builds his general activities, determines his general and private goals in accordance with a certain worldview. This activity and these goals are, as a rule, an expression of certain interests of entire groups or individuals.

In one case, their connection with the worldview can be revealed quite clearly, while in another it is obscured by certain personal attitudes of a person, the characteristics of his character. However, such a connection with the worldview necessarily exists and can be traced. This means that worldview plays a special, very important role in all human activities.

In the center of everyone philosophical problems There are questions about the worldview and the general picture of the world, about a person’s relationship to the outside world, about his ability to understand this world and act expediently in it.

Worldview is the foundation of human consciousness. The acquired knowledge, established beliefs, thoughts, feelings, moods, combined in a worldview, represent a certain system of a person’s understanding of the world and himself. In real life, a worldview in a person’s mind is certain views, views on the world and one’s place in it.

Worldview is an integral formation that generalizes the layers of human experience. This is, firstly, generalized knowledge obtained as a result of professional, practical activities. Secondly, spiritual values that contribute to the formation of moral and aesthetic ideals.

So, a worldview is a set of views, assessments, principles, a certain vision and understanding of the world, as well as a program of human behavior and actions.

Worldview includes a theoretical core and an emotional-volitional component.

There are 4 types of worldview:

1.Mythological

2.Religious

3.Everyday

4.Philosophical

Mythological worldview. Its peculiarity is that knowledge is expressed in images (myth - image). In myths there is no division into the human world and the world of the gods, there is no division into the objective and apparent world, myth gave an idea of how to live, today myth is a manipulator (a myth in the USA about the equality of all before the law)

Close to the mythological, although different from it, was the religious worldview, which developed from the depths of the still undivided, undifferentiated social consciousness. Like mythology, religion appeals to fantasy and feelings. However, unlike myth, religion does not “mix” the earthly and the sacred, but in the deepest and irreversible way separates them into two opposite poles. The creative omnipotent force - God - stands above nature and outside of nature. The existence of God is experienced by man as a revelation. As a revelation, man is given to know that his soul is immortal, eternal life and a meeting with God await him beyond the grave.

Religion is an illusory, fantastic reflection of natural phenomena that acquire a supernatural character.

Components of religion: faith, rituals, social institution - the church.

Religion, religious consciousness, religious attitude towards the world did not remain vital. Throughout the history of mankind, they, like other cultural formations, developed and acquired diverse forms in the East and West, in different historical eras. But all of them were united by the fact that at the center of any religious worldview is the search for higher values, the true path of life, and that both these values and the path leading to them life path is transferred to a transcendental, otherworldly region, not to earthly, but to “eternal” life. All deeds and actions of a person and even his thoughts are evaluated, approved or condemned, therefore, by the highest, absolute criterion.

First of all, it should be noted that the ideas embodied in myths were closely intertwined with rituals and served as an object of faith. In primitive society, mythology was in close interaction with religion. However, it would be wrong to say unequivocally that they were inseparable. Mythology exists separately from religion as an independent, relatively independent form of social consciousness. But in the earliest stages of the development of society, mythology and religion formed a single whole. From the content side, that is, from the point of view of ideological constructs, mythology and religion are inseparable. It cannot be said that some myths are “religious” and others are “mythological”. However, religion has its own specifics. And this specificity does not lie in a special type of ideological constructions (for example, those in which the division of the world into natural and supernatural predominates) and not in a special attitude towards these ideological constructions (the attitude of faith). The division of the world into two levels is inherent in mythology at a fairly high stage of development, and the attitude of faith is also an integral part of mythological consciousness. The specificity of religion is determined by the fact that the main element of religion is the cult system, that is, a system of ritual actions aimed at establishing certain relationships with the supernatural. And therefore, every myth becomes religious to the extent that it is included in the cult system and acts as its content side.

Worldview constructs, when included in a cult system, acquire the character of a creed. And this gives the worldview a special spiritual and practical character. Worldview constructs become the basis for formal regulation and regulation, streamlining and preservation of morals, customs, and traditions. With the help of ritual, religion cultivates human feelings of love, kindness, tolerance, compassion, mercy, duty, justice, etc., giving them special value, connecting their presence with the sacred, supernatural.

The main function of religion is to help a person overcome the historically changeable, transitory, relative aspects of his existence and elevate a person to something absolute, eternal. In philosophical terms, religion is designed to “root” a person in the transcendental. In the spiritual and moral sphere, this is manifested in giving norms, values and ideals an absolute, unchanging character, independent of the conjuncture of the spatio-temporal coordinates of human existence, social institutions, etc. Thus, religion gives meaning and knowledge, and therefore stability in human existence helps him overcome everyday difficulties.

1. worldview

2.cognitive (through the Bible)

3.integrative

4.recreational (satisfaction)

5.compensatory (help)

Philosophical worldview.

The emergence of philosophy as a worldview dates back to the period of development and formation of slave society in the countries of the Ancient East, and the classical form of the philosophical worldview developed in Ancient Greece. Initially, materialism arose as a type of philosophical worldview, as a scientific reaction to the religious form of worldview. Thales was the first in Ancient Greece to rise to the understanding of the material unity of the world and expressed a progressive idea about the transformation of matter, united in its essence, from one state to another. Thales had associates, students and continuers of his views. Unlike Thales, who considered water to be the material basis of all things, they found other material foundations: Anaximenes - air, Heraclitus - fire.

Phil. the worldview is broader than the scientific one because scientific is built on the basis of data from particular sciences and is based on reason, phil. worldview is also based on sensations. It reflects the world through concepts and categories.

Peculiarities:

This is a rational explanation of reality

Phil-I has a conceptual-categorical apparatus

Phil-I is systemic in nature

Phil-I is reflexive in nature

Phil-I is of a value nature

Phil-I requires a certain level of intelligence

Philosophical thought is the thought of the eternal. But this does not mean that philosophy itself is ahistorical. Like any theoretical knowledge, philosophical knowledge develops and is enriched with more and more new content, new discoveries. At the same time, the continuity of what is known is preserved. However, the philosophical spirit, philosophical consciousness is not only a theory, especially an abstract, dispassionately speculative theory. Scientific theoretical knowledge constitutes only one aspect of the ideological content of philosophy. The other, undoubtedly dominant, leading side of it is formed by a completely different component of consciousness - the spiritual-practical one. It is he who expresses the meaning-of-life, value-oriented, that is, worldview, type of philosophical consciousness as a whole. There was a time when no science had ever existed, but philosophy was in the highest level your creative development.

Man's relationship to the world is an eternal subject of philosophy. At the same time, the subject of philosophy is historically mobile, concrete, the “Human” dimension of the world changes with the change in the essential forces of man himself.

The secret goal of philosophy is to take a person out of the sphere of everyday life, captivate him with the highest ideals, give his life true meaning, and open the way to the most perfect values.

The organic combination in philosophy of two principles - scientific-theoretical and practical-spiritual - determines the specificity of it as a completely unique form of consciousness, which is especially noticeable in its history - in the real process of research, development of the ideological content of philosophical teachings that are historically and temporally connected not by chance, but by necessity. All of them are just facets, moments of a single whole. Just as in science and in other spheres of rationality, in philosophy new knowledge is not rejected, but dialectical “removes”, overcomes its previous level, that is, it includes it as its own special case. In the history of thought, Hegel emphasized, we observe progress: a constant ascent from abstract knowledge to more and more concrete knowledge. The sequence of philosophical teachings - in the main and the main thing - is the same as the sequence in the logical definitions of the goal itself, that is, the history of knowledge corresponds to the objective logic of the object being cognized.

The integrity of human spirituality finds its completion in the worldview. Philosophy as a single integral worldview is the work not only of every thinking person, but also of all humanity, which, as an individual person, has never lived and cannot live by purely logical judgments, but carries out its spiritual life in all the colorful fullness and integrity of its diverse moments. Worldview exists in the form of a system of value orientations, ideals, beliefs and convictions, as well as the way of life of a person and society.

Philosophy is one of the main forms of social consciousness, a system of the most general concepts about the world and the place of man in it.

The relationship between philosophy and worldview can be characterized as follows: the concept of “worldview” is broader than the concept of “philosophy”. Philosophy is a form of social and individual consciousness that is constantly theoretically substantiated and has a greater degree of scientificity than just a worldview, say, at the everyday level of common sense, which is present in a person who sometimes does not even know how to write or read.

With the question “is it possible to know being?” Another philosophical question is closely related: “is it reliable human knowledge? It should be noted that this question is, in a sense, rhetorical. It is simply unthinkable to answer this question in the negative! If human knowledge has nothing to do with being, man finds himself outside of this being. This is as if in an instant a person stopped seeing, hearing, distinguishing smells, tastes and touches, and lost the ability to think. Therefore, this issue in the most general sense is always resolved positively.

The question of the relationship between knowledge and reality in the conditions of modern civilization it acquires a pragmatic character and is associated with ways of obtaining knowledge and its application. The effectiveness of human activity directly depends on the correspondence of knowledge to patterns of activity and the product of activity designed on the basis of knowledge with its result.

In a more general case, we are talking about the relationship between the entire body of human knowledge and its inclusion in people’s life activities with the conditions in which this life activity is carried out. In the abstract theoretical language of philosophy, this question is formulated as the relationship between being and thinking.

One of the first to formulate the question of the relationship between knowledge and reality was the ancient Greek thinker Parmenides. According to his point of view, “being and the thought of it are one and the same.” This formula affirms the existential status of a thought and the identity of its content with the reality to which the thought belongs. Parmenides is convinced that the thought of an apple is identical in content to the apple itself.

Plato was less optimistic on this issue. He believed that the correspondence in question is accessible only to gods and divine children, and people are limited to a plausible meaning. In other words, knowledge does not coincide with reality, but is only similar to it, reflects it to a greater or lesser extent. He clarifies his position with the help of the image of a cave: people, being in the cave twilight, do not see the objects themselves, but only their inaccurate and unclear shadows. True, Plato leaves behind the opportunity for a person to leave the cave, but immediately notices that the people themselves do not want to leave it: “And whoever would undertake to release them from their bonds and raise them upward, as soon as they could they would take them in their hands and kill , – they would have killed.”

Who is Plato talking about here without naming a name?

That is why, from Plato’s point of view, a person’s knowledge of the world can only be considered approximate.

I. Kant explained the reliability of knowledge by the fact that man is, as it were, rooted in being.
Man has a special place in existence, which explains the possibility of obtaining reliable knowledge about reality. Later, this idea will form the content of the anthropic principle in science. At the same time, Kant’s teaching about a priori (pre-experimental) forms of knowledge in itself does not provide confidence that the knowledge being created is reliable. It is impossible to establish whether a priori forms allow one to reliably cognize being or not. One cannot be sure of the completeness of knowledge, since it is unclear whether it is possible to obtain comprehensive knowledge using a priori forms of knowledge.

As we see, despite all the desire to positively and definitively resolve the question of the reliability of knowledge, neither philosophy nor science have so far found sufficient arguments for this. Therefore, we can only believe and hope that human knowledge about reality is reliable. One of the most prominent and authoritative thinkers of the 20th century, K. Popper, denies the objective nature of knowledge; his conclusion is pessimistic: “We don’t know, we can guess.”

4. Difference between humanities and natural sciences

The role of mathematics and physics

In the modern system of knowledge, we can distinguish at least four relatively independent types: humanitarian knowledge, technical knowledge, mathematical knowledge and natural science. The most specific among these types of knowledge is mathematics. It is both universal for other types of knowledge and dependent on them, since in any case it makes sense if it only defines and describes patterns regardless of the subject of research. Today it is hardly possible to imagine the development of technology, natural science and even humanities without mathematics.

The habit of mathematical thinking to build purely formal logical systems, using a finite arsenal of means and without the requirement to check the model for some kind of adequacy and consistency with extraneous requirements - after all, a formally consistent system is itself correct - this is an exaggerated habit, uncritically applied to reasoning about reality , usually leads to false, unrealistic conclusions. With this method, firstly, the “logical” construction begins with extremely primitive and fragmentary postulates, very weakly connected with the provisions and conclusions of the corresponding science and even with ordinary common sense and exaggerating the importance of individual particular features and facts. Secondly, since the conclusions are obtained logically, then there is no doubt about their correctness, and therefore neither the original, nor the logic, nor the conclusions are analyzed for their correspondence to reality, especially since the facts can be selected in accordance with the conclusions, and even the degree compliance can always be declared satisfactory. If reality still tries to resist, then so much the worse for it.

Physics is also exposed to a similar danger when researchers and reviewers with hypertrophied mathematical tools invade it.

In mathematics, a proof ends with a period and remains as such forever, no matter how much mathematics subsequently develops. And in physics and in all sciences about reality, which solve inverse (and always finite) problems in an inexhaustibly complex reality, the proof never ends. It is only relatively complete.

In order to “compensate” for the fundamental incompleteness of formal-logical systems, another form of knowledge of Reality is needed, based on completely different principles (if it is at all appropriate to say that it is based on some “principles”).

This is humanitarian, imaginative thinking, which sees in the richness of associations and connections of amorphous images an opportunity for a more subtle study of problems in which the use of “hard” images looks rude, even vulgar, and completely unacceptable. The heart and intuition successfully lead us to such heights where words and logic fall powerlessly silent.

Let us note in conclusion that the fundamental difference between the problem of mathematics and the problem of physics (and other sciences about reality) clearly and significantly separates mathematical and physical criteria and ideals of scientific character while bringing physical ones closer to the general ideals and criteria of scientific character in the study of the real world. And this rapprochement is such that even philosophy, like undeniably scientific physics, turns out to be scientific to the extent that and insofar as it uses scientific methods to systematically study questions about what and in what sense exists in the world and how we know it, rather than expressing for example, wishes for nature.

Attitude to nature in the natural sciences and humanities

Nature and culture are opposed to each other. This is reflected in the radical distinction between science and art, natural sciences and humanities. In nature, man now deals with a fundamentally dehumanized, transcendent being, which is subject to an endless process of cognition.

If nature is an object and acts as external in relation to natural science, then the internal content of natural science is composed of disciplines addressed to separate parts- objects of nature - objects. The totality of natural science disciplines considers the sum of objects - parts of nature, but is the knowledge they receive a valid representation of nature? Different stages of development of natural science represent nature differently. Moreover, the difference between these ideas depends on the extent to which science is involved in this.

The object has practically inexhaustible content. In turn, an object is something that specifically determines the content of nature as an object, for example, a set of physical laws, chemical, or biological, etc. Accordingly, natural science is objectively presented in the form of various disciplines that study these patterns and, ultimately, through the scientific paradigm, form a general idea of nature as an object. The concept "nature" can be used in several senses. For example, one can talk about the “nature” of man, considering him as an object of natural science. In this case, disciplines such as physiology, anatomy, psychology and others will be selected as subjects for study.

An internal inconsistency between the idea of nature and itself arises. It is simultaneously defined as an object fundamentally foreign to man (the subject of cognition) and no less fundamentally as an object homogeneous to man (the subject of practical development). Any natural scientific understanding of nature as a completely idealized substance is contrasted with a humanitarian understanding of the incompatibility of nature in the forms of human development of it. The scientific pathos of knowledge and mastery is contrasted with the artistic pathos of the material originality of the natural. The division of nature as a single object into many objects is determined by the direction of human practical activity, which, in turn, follows from the natural conditions of its existence. Man is part evolutionary process nature, he is endowed with the ability to realize this process and therefore, in principle, the practical development and transformation of nature is available to him. All species have adaptive ability, but only humans master it at both the theoretical and practical levels, which changes the situation. Regardless of what nature actually is, splitting it into parts and sequential study of individual fragments is sufficient to master and transform it. This situation is expressed by the phrase about the objective and objective consideration of nature. In practice, this means that, depending on the degree of “science” of natural science, a certain set of stable connections is distinguished as a subject in nature, which ultimately leads to the formation of a discipline, which appears as a set of theoretical principles and practical methodologies aimed at mastering the selected subject. Thus, we can draw the following conclusion: the study of nature is the raison d'être of natural science. At the same time, this research must proceed from the understanding of the impossibility of a “direct”, “non-human” appeal to nature; it must be humane. Between it and natural science there will always be a person with his own culture, history and language. “Pure” as well as “absolute” knowledge is an illusion.

Religion and Science

The problem of confrontation between science and religion today can hardly be called relevant. All the “great battles” between them remained in history, and the border was determined. The advantage is on the side of science. But it is not absolute. Natural scientific experience is not able to completely replace a worldview, and here religion almost begins to compete with natural science on an equal footing. The scientific picture of the world is not able to satisfy all minds. There are a lot of gaps in it.

Scientific knowledge and religious knowledge are incompatible, since their cognitive attitudes are completely opposite. Many examples can be given to confirm this thesis. The opposite is manifested in everything: in the procedures of cognition, in relation to research, to its empirical and theoretical foundations, in the interpretation of truth, etc. But let’s try to highlight the simplest and most general difference between religion and natural science. I believe that it can be expressed by the following thesis: in scientific natural science there is no absolute truth. Any truth is only a result that is overcome. In religion there is an absolute truth that can neither be overcome nor abolished under any circumstances - this is God.

In addition, science is a field of activity that, due to its intellectual complexity, cannot be the work of many. An attempt to popularly present a scientific worldview also has its limits, going beyond which is unacceptable.

5. Pre-classical, classical and non-classical science.

Science as an integral phenomenon arises in modern times as a result of a spin-off from philosophy and goes through three main stages in its development: classical, non-classical, post-non-classical (modern). 1. Classical science(XVII-XIX centuries), exploring its objects, sought to eliminate, as much as possible, in their description and theoretical explanation, everything that relates to the subject, means, techniques and operations of its activity. Such elimination was considered as a necessary condition for obtaining objectively true knowledge about the world. Here the objective style of thinking dominates, the desire to cognize the object in itself, regardless of the conditions of its study by the subject.2. Non-classical science(first half of the 20th century), the starting point of which is associated with the development of relativistic and quantum theory, rejects the objectivism of classical science, rejects the idea of reality as something independent of the means of its knowledge, a subjective factor. It comprehends the connections between the knowledge of the object and the nature of the means and operations of the subject. 3. Post-non-classical science(second half XX - beginning of XXI c.) - constant inclusion of subjective activity in the “body of knowledge”. It takes into account the correlation of the nature of the acquired knowledge about an object not only with the peculiarities of the means and operations of the activity of the cognizing subject, but also with its value-goal structures.

Each stage has its own paradigm, its own picture of the world, its own fundamental ideas. The classical stage has mechanics as its paradigm, its picture of the world is built on the principle of rigid determinism, and it corresponds to the image of the universe as a clockwork mechanism. The paradigm of relativity, discreteness, quantization, probability, and complementarity is associated with non-classical science.

The post-non-classical stage corresponds to the paradigm of formation and self-organization.

Examples of literary works of romanticism. School encyclopedia

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

Similar documents

Science as a phenomenon of human culture