Man cognizes the world, society and himself with one goal - to know the truth. And what is truth, how to determine that this or that knowledge is true, what are the criteria for truth? This article is about this.

What is truth

There are several definitions of truth. Here is some of them.

• Truth is knowledge that corresponds to the subject of knowledge.
• Truth is a truthful, objective reflection in the mind of a person of reality.

absolute truth - this is a complete, exhaustive knowledge of a person about something. This knowledge will not be refuted or supplemented with the development of science.

Examples: man is mortal, twice two is four.

Relative truth - this is knowledge that will be replenished with the development of science, since it is still incomplete, does not fully reveal the essence of phenomena, objects, etc. This happens due to the fact that at this stage of human development, science cannot yet reach the final essence of the subject being studied.

Example: first, people discovered that substances consist of molecules, then of atoms, then of electrons, etc. As we can see, at each stage in the development of science, the idea of ​​an atom was true, but incomplete, that is, relative.

Difference between absolute and relative truth lies in how fully this or that phenomenon or object is studied.

Remember: absolute truth has always been relative at first. Relative truth can become absolute with the development of science.

Are there two truths?

Not, there are no two truths . There may be several points of view on the subject being studied, but the truth is always the same.

What is the opposite of truth?

The opposite of truth is delusion.

Delusion - this is knowledge that does not correspond to the subject of knowledge, but is accepted as truth. The scientist believes that his knowledge of the subject is true, although he is mistaken.

Remember: False- not is the opposite of truth.

Lie is a category of morality. It is characterized by the fact that the truth is hidden for some purpose, although it is known. W delusion same is not a lie, but a sincere belief that knowledge is true (for example, communism is a delusion, such a society cannot exist in the life of mankind, but whole generations of Soviet people sincerely believed in it).

Objective and subjective truth

objective truth - this is the content of human knowledge that exists in reality and does not depend on a person, on his level of knowledge. This is the whole world that exists around.

For example, much in the world, in the Universe exists in reality, although humanity has not yet known this, perhaps it will never know, but all this exists, an objective truth.

subjective truth - this is the knowledge received by mankind as a result of its cognitive activity, this is all that in reality that has passed through the consciousness of a person, understood by him.

Remember:objective truth is not always subjective, and subjective truth is always objective.

Truth Criteria

Criteria- this word foreign origin, translated from Greek kriterion - a measure for evaluation. Thus, the criteria of truth are the grounds that will make it possible to verify the truth, accuracy of knowledge, in accordance with their subject of knowledge.

Truth Criteria

• sensory experience - the simplest and reliable criterion truth. How to determine that an apple is tasty - try it; how to understand that music is beautiful - listen to it; how to make sure that the color of the leaves is green - look at them.
• Theoretical information about the subject of knowledge, that is, theory . Many objects are not amenable to sensory perception. We will never be able to see, for example, the Big Bang, which resulted in the formation of the Universe. In this case, theoretical study, logical conclusions will help to recognize the truth.

Theoretical criteria of truth:

1. Compliance with logical laws
2. Correspondence of truth with those laws that were discovered by people earlier
3. Simplicity of formulation, economy of expression

• Practice. This criterion is also very effective, since the truth of knowledge is proved by practical means. .(There will be a separate article about the practice, follow the publications)

Thus, the main goal of any knowledge is to establish the truth. This is what scientists are dedicated to, this is what each of us is trying to achieve in life: know the truth whatever she touches.

In many ways, the problem of the reliability of our knowledge about the world is determined by the answer to the fundamental question of the theory of knowledge: "What is truth?"

1. In the history of philosophy, there were different views on the possibility of obtaining reliable knowledge:

• Empiricism - all knowledge about the world is justified only by experience (F. Bacon)
• Sensationalism - only with the help of sensations can one know the world (D. Hume)
• Rationalism - reliable knowledge can only be gleaned from the mind itself (R. Descartes)
• Agnosticism - "thing in itself" is unknowable (I. Kant)
• Skepticism - it is impossible to obtain reliable knowledge about the world (M. Montaigne)

True there is a process, and not a one-time act of comprehending the object at once in full.

Truth is one, but objective, absolute and relative aspects are distinguished in it, which can also be considered as relatively independent truths.

objective truth- this is the content of knowledge that does not depend either on man or on humanity.

absolute truth- this is an exhaustive reliable knowledge of nature, man and society; knowledge that can never be refuted.

Relative truth- this is incomplete, inaccurate knowledge, corresponding to a certain level of development of society, which determines the ways of obtaining this knowledge; it is knowledge that depends on certain conditions, place and time of its receipt.

The difference between absolute and relative truth (or absolute and relative in objective truth) is in the degree of accuracy and completeness of the reflection of reality. Truth is always concrete, it is always associated with a certain place, time and circumstances.

Not everything in our life can be assessed in terms of truth or error (falsehood). So, we can talk about different assessments of historical events, alternative interpretations of works of art, etc.

2. True- this is knowledge corresponding to its subject, coinciding with it. Other definitions:

1. compliance of knowledge with reality;
2. what is confirmed by experience;
3. some kind of agreement, convention;
4. property of self-consistency of knowledge;
5. the usefulness of the acquired knowledge for practice.

Aspects of truth:

3. Truth Criteria- that which certifies the truth and distinguishes it from error.

1. compliance with the laws of logic;

2. compliance with previously discovered laws of science;

3. compliance with fundamental laws;

4. simplicity, economy of the formula;

Absolute and Relative Truth

paradoxical idea;

6. practice.

4. Practice- an integral organic system of active material activity of people, aimed at transforming reality, carried out in a certain socio-cultural context.

Forms practices:

1. material production(labor, transformation of nature);
2. social action (revolutions, reforms, wars, etc.);
3. scientific experiment.

Functions practices:

1. source of knowledge (practical needs brought to life the existing sciences.);
2. the basis of knowledge (a person does not just observe or contemplate the world, but in the course of its life activity it transforms it);
3. the purpose of cognition (for this reason, a person cognizes the world around him, reveals the laws of its development in order to use the results of cognition in his practical activities);
4. criterion of truth (until some proposition, expressed in the form of a theory, concept, simple inference, is verified by experience, is not put into practice, it will remain just a hypothesis (assumption)).

Meanwhile, practice is both definite and indefinite, absolute and relative. Absolute in the sense that only developing practice can finally prove any theoretical or other provisions. At the same time, this criterion is relative, since the practice itself develops, improves, and therefore cannot immediately and completely prove certain conclusions obtained in the process of cognition. Therefore, in philosophy, the idea of ​​complementarity is put forward: the leading criterion of truth - practice, which includes material production, accumulated experience, experiment, is supplemented by the requirements of logical consistency and, in many cases, the practical usefulness of certain knowledge.

exhaustive knowledge

Page 1

Absolutely complete, accurate, comprehensive, exhaustive knowledge about any phenomenon is called absolute truth.

It is often asked whether absolute truth can be reached and formulated. Agnostics answer this question in the negative.

The lack of comprehensive knowledge about the control processes to be automated is not always an obstacle to determining the list of main tasks and requirements for automated control systems.

If the program has exhaustive knowledge, it is able to formulate the question (or rather, the statement behind it) as a logical consequence of the current state of the problem, the strategic knowledge contained in the metarules, the knowledge of the subject area and one of the current goals.

A modern scientist must have comprehensive and comprehensive knowledge in the often very narrow field of science he develops, and, on the other hand, the successful development of the chosen direction is unthinkable without a large amount of knowledge in a wide variety of related sciences.

The difference between ABSOLUTE TRUTH and RELATIVE

These experiments do not provide exhaustive knowledge for practice, therefore, it is desirable to continue such experimental work with respect to a much larger number of types of existing regulators and fuel supply equipment.

None of them alone gives an exhaustive knowledge of any subject.

But everything that at least partially or through instruments affects our senses can be studied and understood.

Somewhat later it was shown that the Schrödinger equation gives an exhaustive knowledge of the behavior of the electron. And those data that, in principle, cannot be calculated, also, in principle, cannot be measured experimentally. Let's say as soon as you try to look at an electron, you will push it off the path. But what eludes measurement and calculation simply does not exist in the world.

In application to a sufficiently developed scientific theoretical knowledge absolute truth is complete, exhaustive knowledge about an object (a complexly organized material system or the world as a whole); relative truth is incomplete knowledge about the same subject.

At the same time, it is impossible, and indeed there is no need, to demand from the manager an exhaustive knowledge of all scientific disciplines, the services of which he has to resort to in managerial activity.

Therefore, scientific truths are relative in the sense that they do not provide complete, exhaustive knowledge about the area of ​​subjects under study and contain such elements that, in the process of development of knowledge, will be changed, refined, deepened, replaced by new ones.

The technology of heat supply and ventilation is developing so rapidly that in our time it is no longer possible to demand from specialist builders and architects an exhaustive knowledge of such a large field of technology in all its varieties. However, the mutual connection between heat supply and ventilation technology, on the one hand, and general construction technology, on the other, not only does not disappear, but, on the contrary, becomes even closer, even more necessary for the correct solution of a complex of issues of factory, urban and collective farm construction. .

The main task of science is to study the phenomenon under changing conditions in which it occurs. Exhaustive knowledge consists precisely in having a clear idea of ​​this or that fact occurring in any conceivable conditions. It is very important to know what changes in the external world are indifferent to the fact of interest to us, and if there is an influence, then to study it quantitatively. It is necessary to find the conditions under which the phenomenon screams about itself, and such circumstances under which the phenomenon is absent.

Each of them, they argue, turns out to be not quite accurate and complete over time, as in the example with the solar system. Therefore, complete, exhaustive knowledge is unattainable. And the more complex this or that phenomenon, the more difficult it is to achieve absolute truth, that is, complete, exhaustive knowledge about it. And yet absolute truth exists; and it must be understood as the limit, the goal towards which human knowledge strives.

In the future, it is necessary to establish why alcohols and other functional derivatives cannot be obtained from paraffinic hydrocarbons, especially from higher ones, by means of intermediate chlorination, a very attractive method. The explanation of this fact, which assumes an exhaustive knowledge of the regularities of the processes of substitution of paraffin hydrocarbons, is connected with the general conclusion that not only chlorination, but also all other reactions of paraffin substitution proceed according to certain identical laws.

With the help of models, any objects can be investigated. But the fundamental incompleteness, fragmentation of the models does not allow one to obtain exhaustive knowledge about the original with their help. Only in combination with other methods of cognition, in combination with a direct study of the original, the modeling method can be fruitful and have significant heuristic value.

Pages:      1    2

Relativity and absoluteness of truth

In my opinion, each person in his judgment about the truth is still purely subjective, and therefore it is necessary to distinguish the concept of general, in other words, absolute truth from the concept of the truth of each specific individual. And in the classical theory, such a distinction is actually absent.

So what is relative truth? Perhaps it can be characterized as knowledge that approximately and incompletely reproduces the objective world. Precisely approximateness and incompleteness are the specific properties of relative truth. If the world is a system of interconnected elements, then we can conclude that any knowledge about the world, abstracting from some of its aspects, will be obviously inaccurate. Why? It seems to me that because a person cannot cognize the world without fixing his attention on some of its sides and without being distracted from others, proximity is intrinsic to the cognitive process itself.

On the other hand, the search for absolute truth is being undertaken within the framework of the knowledge of specific, and even single facts. As examples of eternal truths, sentences that are a statement of fact usually appear, for example: "Napoleon died on May 5, 1821." Or the speed of light in vacuum is 300,000 km/s.

6 Truth and its criteria. Relativity of truth.

However, attempts to apply the concept of absolute truth to more essential provisions of science, such as universal laws, are unsuccessful.

Thus, a kind of dilemma arises: if absolute truth is considered as absolutely complete and accurate knowledge, then it lies outside the limits of real scientific knowledge; if it is considered as a set of eternal truths, then the concept of absolute truth is inapplicable to the most fundamental types of scientific knowledge. This dilemma is the result of a one-sided approach to the problem, expressed in the fact that absolute truth is identified with a kind of knowledge, isolated from relative truth. The meaning of the concept of "absolute truth" is revealed only in the process of development of scientific knowledge. It consists in the fact that during the transition of scientific knowledge from stage to stage, for example, from one theory to another, the old knowledge is not completely discarded, but is included in one form or another in the system of new knowledge. It is this inclusion, continuity, which characterizes truth as a process, that perhaps constitutes the content of the concept of absolute truth.

Thus, a lot of unresolved problems have arisen, each of which is somehow connected with the need to determine the degree of correspondence between the ideas of a person and the real world. From this follows the need to search for the most stringent criterion of truth, that is, a sign by which one could determine the truth of this or that knowledge.

In addition, only after the establishment of the criterion of truth, many categories with which a person has to interact in one way or another become meaningful.

Processuality of knowledge is that cognitive activity is an advance from ignorance to knowledge, from error to truth, from incomplete, imperfect, incomplete knowledge to more complete, perfect knowledge. The purpose of knowledge is the attainment of truth.

What is truth? How are truth and error related? How is truth obtained and what are its criteria?

J. Locke wrote about the meaning of achieving truth: “The search for truth by the mind is a kind of falconry or dog hunting, in which the pursuit of game itself is a significant part of the pleasure. Each step that the mind takes in its movement towards knowledge is a discovery, which is not only new, but also the best, for the time being, at least."

Aristotle gave the classic definition truth - this is the correspondence of thought and object, knowledge and reality. Truth is knowledge that corresponds to reality. It should be noted that in nature itself there are neither truths nor errors. They are characteristics of human cognition .

Kinds of truth:

1. Absolute truth -

This is knowledge, the content of which is not refuted by the subsequent development of science, but is only enriched and concretized (for example, the teaching of Democritus about atoms;

This is knowledge, the content of which remains invariant (Pushkin was born in 1799);

it absolutely complete and exhaustive knowledge of the subject . In this understanding, absolute truth is not achievable, because all the connections of the subject cannot be explored.

2. Objective truth- this is knowledge about an object, the content of which is the properties and connections of an objectively (regardless of a person) existing object. Such knowledge does not bear the imprint of the personality of the researcher.

objective truth - this is the content of knowledge that does not depend on a person, this is an adequate reflection by the subject of the surrounding world.

3. Relative truth- this is incomplete, limited, true only in certain conditions, knowledge that humanity possesses at a given stage of its development. Relative truth contains elements of delusions associated with concrete historical conditions of knowledge.

4. Concrete truth- this is knowledge, the content of which is true only under certain conditions. For example, "water boils at 100 degrees" is true only under conditions of normal atmospheric pressure.

The process of cognition can be represented as a movement towards absolute truth as a goal through the accumulation of the content of objective truth by clarifying and improving relative and specific truths.

The opposite of truth, but under certain conditions passing into it and emerging from it, is error.

Delusion - an unintentional discrepancy between our understanding of an object (expressed in the corresponding judgments or concepts) and this object itself.

Sources of delusion can be:

- imperfection of the cognitive abilities of the individual;

- prejudices, addictions, subjective moods of the individual;

- poor knowledge of the subject of knowledge, reckless generalizations and conclusions.

Misconceptions must be distinguished from:

— mistakes (the result of an incorrect theoretical or practical action, as well as the interpretation of this phenomenon);

— lies (deliberate, deliberate distortion of reality, deliberate dissemination of deliberately incorrect ideas).

The notion that science operates only with truths is not true. Delusion is an organic part of the truth and stimulates the process of cognition as a whole. On the one hand, delusions lead away from the truth, so a scientist, as a rule, does not deliberately put forward false assumptions. But on the other hand, delusions often contribute to the creation of problem situations, stimulating the development of science.

The experience of the history of science allows us to draw an important conclusion: all scientists should be equal in their search for truth; not a single scientist, not a single scientific school has the right to claim a monopoly in obtaining true knowledge.

The separation of truth from error is impossible without resolving the question of what is criterion of truth .

From the history of attempts to identify the criteria for the truth of knowledge:

· Rationalists (R. Descartes, B. Spinoza, G. Leibniz) - the criterion of truth is thinking itself when it clearly and distinctly thinks of the object; the original truths are self-evident and comprehended by intellectual intuition.

· Russian philosopher V.S. Soloviev — “the measure of truth is transferred from the external world to the cognizing subject himself, the basis of truth is not the nature of things and phenomena, but the human mind” in the case of conscientious work of thinking.

· E. Cassirer - the criterion of truth is the internal consistency of thinking itself.

· Conventionalism (A. Poincare, K. Aidukevich, R. Carnap) - scientists accept scientific theories (conclude an agreement, convention) for reasons of convenience, simplicity, etc. The criterion of truth is the formal-logical consistency of the judgments of science with these conventions.

· Neopositivists (XX century) - the truth of scientific statements is established as a result of their empirical verification, this is the so-called. verification principle. (Verifiability (verification) from Latin verus - true, and facio - I do). However, we note that often experimental activity cannot give a final answer about the truth of knowledge. This happens when the process is studied in the experiment "in its pure form", i.e. in complete isolation from other influencing factors. The experimental verification of social and humanitarian knowledge is significantly limited.

Pragmatism (W. James) - the truth of knowledge is manifested in their ability to be useful to achieve a particular goal; truth is useful. (The thesis “everything that is useful is true” is debatable, since lies can also bring benefits).

Most common criterion of truth knowledge is practice , understood as the socio-historical activity of people. If the use of knowledge in practical activities people gives the expected results, which means that our knowledge correctly reflects reality. Practice as a criterion of truth is considered not as a single experience, not as a one-time act of verification, but social practice in its historical development.

However, this criterion is not universal, for example, it does not work in those branches of knowledge that are far from reality (mathematics, non-classical physics). Then other criteria of truth are proposed:

· Formal-logical criterion. It is applicable to axiomatic-deductive theories, it implies compliance with the requirements of internal consistency (this is the main requirement), completeness and interdependence of axioms.

When it is not possible to rely on practice, the logical sequence of thought, its strict adherence to the laws and rules of formal logic, is revealed. Identification of logical contradictions in reasoning or in the structure of the concept becomes an indicator of error or delusion.

· The principle of simplicity , sometimes called "Occam's razor" - do not multiply the number of entities unnecessarily. The main requirement of this principle is that to explain the objects under study, it is necessary to introduce the minimum number of initial postulates (accepted without proving the provisions).

· Axiological criterion , i.e.

Absolute and Relative Truth

correspondence of knowledge to general worldview, socio-political, moral principles. Especially applicable in the social sciences.

But most important criterion Truth is all the same practice, experience. Practice underlies the logical, axiological and all other criteria of truth. Whatever methods of establishing the truth of knowledge may exist in science, all of them ultimately (through a number of intermediate links) turn out to be connected with practice.

6. Characteristics of the cognitive abilities of various social groups.

The formation of full-fledged cognitive abilities in children of primary and school age has been fairly well studied by now. The study of the intellectual level of adults faces serious difficulties. Here, of course, the presence of certain age characteristics cannot be denied, but it is quite difficult to single out such age groups. Researchers today have established that certain age groups have common features and relatively stable signs of their intellectual activity. These characteristics are influenced not only by biological age, but also by other factors: family, place of residence, education, ethnic characteristics, and much more. Therefore, people of the same age can belong to different intellectual groups depending on their sociocultural environment.

When measuring the formed intelligence using the so-called "D. Wexler's battery of tests" (tests for awareness, logic, memory, operating with symbols, understanding communication, etc.), the best results were given by the age group from 15 to 25 years, and according to other data - from 25 to 29 years old.

achieve high precision in measuring intelligence is quite difficult. Summarizing the data of various measurements, we can say that the growth of intellectual abilities occurs approximately up to 20-25 years. Then comes a slight intellectual decline, which becomes more noticeable after 40-45 years and reaches its maximum after 60-65 years (Fig. 4).

Rice. 4. Relationship between intelligence and age

However, such testing does not give an objective picture, because. one cannot study the young mind, the mature mind, and the old mind with the same tests.

At young man the mind serves, first of all, the assimilation most information, mastering new ways of activity for him. The mind of a more mature person is directed not so much to the increment of knowledge, but to the solution challenging tasks on the basis of already existing knowledge, experience and own style of thinking and acting. These qualities of the mind are often called wisdom. Of course, over the years, individual functions of the intellect inevitably weaken and even get lost. In elderly and especially senile people, the objectivity of assessments gradually decreases, inertia of judgments grows, they often stray into extreme, black-and-white tones on controversial issues of life practice.

Studies show that the natural decline in intellectual activity is restrained by personal talent, education, and social position. People with a higher educational level and those in leadership positions tend to retire later than their peers. In addition, they have more possibilities to remain intellectually active even after retirement, working as advisers or consultants.

Quite naturally, there are many intellectual centenarians among scientists and other specialists in mental, creative work. For older scientists and engineers, the vocabulary and general erudition almost do not change with age, for middle managers they remain at high level non-verbal functions of communication, for accountants - the speed of arithmetic operations.

In addition to the age characteristics of intelligence, we can also talk about gender and ethnicity.

The question of who is smarter - men or women, is as old as the world. Experimental and test studies carried out over the past two decades have confirmed the fundamental equality of intellects in people of different sexes. When performing tasks for different mental functions (the ability to generate ideas, originality, originality), no special differences were found between male and female intellects. Many well-known psychologists independently came to similar conclusions. However, a certain superiority of women in the resources of verbal memory and the lexical stock of live speech was found. Men are superior to women in visual-spatial orientation.

Thus, although there are intellectual differences between the sexes, they are incomparably small in relation to individual differences within each sex.

The fundamental equality of intellects does not at all mean their sameness, complete identity of cognitive processes in men and women. IQ tests consistently reveal some differences between boys and girls, boys and girls, men and women. Women, on average, surpass men in verbal abilities, but are inferior to them in mathematical abilities and the ability to navigate in space. Girls usually learn to speak, read and write earlier than boys.

The noted differences should not be absolutized. Many men speak better women, and some women demonstrate better mathematical abilities than the vast majority of men.

An interesting fact is that men in most methods receive the highest and lowest possible scores. In women, the spread of individual assessments of mental giftedness is much narrower. In other words, among men there are much more geniuses in science, art and other fields, but there are also much more feeble-minded men than women.

Another interest Ask, which arises before the researcher of intelligence - ethnic characteristics. As a rule, ethnic features of intellectual activity and intellectual development are formed against the background of the psychological make-up of the nation.

Hans Eysenck, based on research conducted in the United States, notes that Jews, Japanese and Chinese are superior to representatives of all other nations in all indicators of tests for IQ (intelligence quotient). This is also evidenced by the presentation of the Nobel Prize. The publication American Scientists, which lists America's foremost scientists, shows that Jews outnumber non-Jews by about 300% in this area. The Chinese are just as successful in physics and biology. One of the few attempts at typology of national minds known today belongs to the French theorist of science at the beginning of the 20th century. Pierre Duhem. Duhem distinguished between minds that are broad, but not deep enough, and minds that are subtle, penetrating, although comparatively narrow in their scope.

People of a broad mind, in his opinion, are found among all nations, but there is a nation for which such intelligence is especially characteristic. This is the English. In science and, especially in practice, such a "British" type of mind easily operates with complex groupings of individual objects, but it is much more difficult to assimilate purely abstract concepts, formulates common features. In the history of philosophy, an example of this type of mind, from the point of view of Duhem, is F. Bacon.

The French type, according to Duhem, is especially subtle, loves abstractions, generalizations. Although it is too narrow. An example of the French type of mind is R. Descartes. Duhem cited supporting examples not only from the history of philosophy, but also from other sciences.

Whenever attempting to single out a particular national model of thought, one should remember the relativity of such differentiation. The national mind is not a stable pattern, like the color of the skin or the shape of the eyes, it reflects many features of the socio-cultural life of the people.

⇐ Previous34353637383940414243Next ⇒

Publication date: 2014-10-25; Read: 31934 | Page copyright infringement

Studopedia.org - Studopedia.Org - 2014-2018 year. (0.004 s) ...

The truth of a thought or idea is based on how much they correspond to objective reality, how much they correspond to practice.
“This rope will not withstand 16 kg. - No, it will withstand ...” no matter how much we argue, we will find out whose opinion is most true only after we hang a weight on the rope and try to lift it.
Philosophy singles out concrete and abstract, relative and absolute truth. Relative truth is incomplete, often even inaccurate knowledge about an object or phenomenon. Usually it corresponds to a certain level of development of society, to the instrumental and research base that it has. Relative truth is also a moment of our limited knowledge of the world, the approximation and imperfection of our knowledge, this is knowledge that depends on hysterical conditions, the time of the place of its receipt.
Any truth, any knowledge that we use in practice is relative. Any, the simplest object has an infinite variety of properties, an infinite number of relationships.
Let's take our example. The rope can withstand the weight, which is stamped "16 kilograms". This is a relative truth, reflecting one, but not the main and by no means the only property of the rope. What material is it made from? What chemical composition this material? Who, when and where produced this material? How else can this material be used? One can formulate hundreds of questions about this simple subject, but even after answering them, we will not know EVERYTHING about it.
Relative truth is true as long as it meets the practical needs of man. For a long time, the postulate of a flat Earth and the Sun revolving around it was true for a person, but only as long as this idea met the needs for navigation of ships that, when sailing, did not leave the sight of the coast.
In addition, relative truth must meet the needs of the individual. The primitive potter did not need to know the clay firing temperature in degrees - he successfully determined it by eye, the surgeon did not need to know the number of relatives of the patient at all, and the teacher did not need to know the size of the student's shoes.
Absolute truth is an adequate reflection by the subject that cognizes the cognized object, its presentation by what it really is, regardless of the level of knowledge of a person and his opinion about this object. Here a contradiction immediately arises - any human knowledge cannot be independent of a person, precisely because it is human. Absolute truth is also an understanding of the infinity of the world, the limits to which human knowledge aspires. The concept of "infinity" is easily operated by mathematicians and physicists, but it is not given to the human mind to imagine, to see infinity. Absolute truth is also exhaustive, reliable, verified knowledge that cannot be refuted. For a long time, the concept of the indivisibility of the atom was at the heart of the world outlook. The word itself is translated as "indivisible". Today we cannot be sure that tomorrow any truth that seems indisputable today will not be rejected.
The main difference between relative and absolute truth is in the completeness and adequacy of the reflection of reality. Truth is always relative and concrete. “A person has a heart on the left side of the chest” - this is a relative truth - a person has many more properties and organs, but not a specific one, that is, it cannot be a universal truth - there are people whose heart is located on the right. 2+2 is true in arithmetic, but two people + two people can be a team, a gang, or equal to a number greater than 4 if it's two married couples. 2 weight units + 2 weight units of uranium may not mean 4 weight units, but a nuclear reaction. Mathematics and physics, and indeed any exact sciences, use abstract truths. “The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the legs,” and it doesn’t matter where the triangle is drawn - on the ground or on the human body, what color, size, etc.
Even seemingly absolute moral truths often turn out to be relative. How universally recognized is the truth about the need for respect for parents, from the biblical commandments to all world literature, but when Miklouho-Maclay tried to convince the wild islanders of Oceania who ate their parents that this was unacceptable, they gave him an argument that was indisputable from their point of view; "Better we eat them and sustain our own lives and the lives of our children, than worms eat them." I am not talking about such a moral imperative as respect for the life of another person, which is completely forgotten during the war, moreover, it degenerates into its opposite.
Human knowledge is an endless process of movement from relative to absolute truth. At each stage, the truth, being relative, nevertheless remains true - it meets the needs of a person, the level of development of his tools and production as a whole, does not contradict the reality that he observes. That's when this contradiction of objective reality comes - the search for a new truth, more close to the absolute, begins. In every relative truth there is a bit of absolute truth - the idea that the Earth is flat allowed us to draw maps and make long journeys. With the development of knowledge, the proportion of absolute truth in relative truth increases, but will never reach 100%. Many believe that the absolute truth is Revelation, it is possessed only by the Omniscient and Almighty God.
Attempts to elevate relative truth to the rank of absolute is always a ban on freedom of thought and even on specific Scientific research, just as cybernetics and genetics were banned in the USSR, just as the church at one time condemned any scientific search and refuted any discovery, because the Bible already contains absolute truth. When craters were discovered on the moon, one of the ideologues of the church simply stated on this occasion: "This is not written in the Bible, therefore, this cannot be."
In general, the construction of relative truth into absolute is typical for dictatorial authoritarian regimes, which have always hampered the development of science, as well as for any religion. A person should not seek the truth - everything is said in the Holy Scriptures. There is an exhaustive explanation for any object or phenomenon - “This is so, because the Lord created (willed) so. At one time, Clive Lewis well formulated this: “If you want to know everything, turn to God, if you are interested in learning, turn to science.”
Understanding the relativity of any truth does not disappoint in knowledge, but stimulates researchers to search.

Absolute Truth and Absolute in Truth

Speaking about the relative nature of truth, one should not forget that what is meant is truth in the sphere of scientific knowledge, but by no means knowledge of absolutely reliable facts, such as the fact that today Russia is not a monarchy. It is the presence of absolutely reliable and therefore absolutely true facts that is extremely important in the practical activities of people, especially in those areas of activity that are associated with the decision of human destinies. So, the judge has no right to argue: "The defendant either committed a crime or not, but just in case, let's punish him." The court does not have the right to punish a person if there is no complete certainty that there is a corpus delicti. If a court finds a person guilty of a crime, then nothing remains in the verdict that could contradict the reliable truth of this empirical fact. A doctor, before operating on a patient or applying a potent drug, must base his decision on absolutely reliable data about a person’s disease. Absolute truths include reliably established facts, dates of events, births and deaths, and so on.

Absolute truths, once expressed with complete clarity and certainty, no longer meet with demonstrative expressions, as, for example, the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to the sum of two right angles, and so on. They remain true regardless of who and when claims it. In other words, absolute truth is the identity of the concept and the object in thinking - in the sense of completeness, coverage, coincidence and essence and all forms of its manifestation. Such, for example, are the provisions of science: "Nothing in the world is created from nothing, and nothing disappears without a trace"; "The earth revolves around the sun", etc. Absolute truth is such a content of knowledge that is not refuted by the subsequent development of science, but is enriched and constantly confirmed by life. By absolute truth in science they mean exhaustive, ultimate knowledge about an object, as it were, the achievement of those boundaries beyond which there is nothing more to know. The process of development of science can be represented as a series of successive approximations to absolute truth, each of which is more accurate than the previous ones. The term "absolute" is also applied to any relative truth: since it is objective, it contains something absolute as a moment. And in this sense it can be said that any truth is absolutely relative. In the total knowledge of mankind, the proportion of the absolute is constantly increasing. The development of any truth is the building up of moments of the absolute. For example, each subsequent scientific theory is, in comparison with the previous one, more complete and deeper knowledge. But new scientific truths do not at all throw their predecessors "down the slope of history", but supplement, concretize or include them as moments of more general and deeper truths.

So, science has not only absolute truths, but to an even greater extent - relative truths, although the absolute is always partially realized in our actual knowledge. It is unreasonable to be carried away by the assertion of absolute truths. It is necessary to remember about the immensity of the still unknown, about the relativity and once again the relativity of our knowledge.

Concreteness of Truth and Dogmatism

The concreteness of truth - one of the basic principles of the dialectical approach to cognition - presupposes an accurate accounting of all conditions (in social cognition - concrete historical conditions) in which the object of cognition is located. Concreteness is a property of truth based on knowledge of real connections, the interaction of all aspects of an object, the main, essential properties, and trends in its development. Thus, the truth or falsity of certain judgments cannot be established if the conditions of the place, time, etc., in which they are formulated, are not known. A judgment that correctly reflects an object under given conditions becomes false in relation to the same object in other circumstances. A true reflection of one of the moments of reality can become its opposite - a delusion, if certain conditions, place, time and the role of the reflected in the whole are not taken into account. For example, a separate organ cannot be comprehended outside the whole organism, a person - outside of society (moreover, a historically specific society and in the context of special, individual circumstances of his life). The statement "water boils at 100 degrees Celsius" is true only if we are talking about ordinary water and normal pressure. This proposition will lose its truth if the pressure is changed.

Each object, along with common features, is endowed with individual features, has its own unique "context of life". Because of this, along with a generalized approach, a specific approach to the object is also necessary: there is no abstract truth, truth is always concrete. Are the principles of classical mechanics true, for example? Yes, they are true in relation to macrobodies and relatively low speeds of movement. Beyond these limits they cease to be true. The principle of the concreteness of truth requires us to approach facts not with general formulas and schemes, but taking into account the specific situation, real conditions, which is in no way compatible with dogmatism. The concrete-historical approach is of particular importance in the analysis of the process of social development, since the latter is carried out unevenly and, moreover, has its own specifics in different countries.

Relative truth - it is knowledge that approximately and limitedly reproduces reality.

absolute truth- this is a complete, exhaustive knowledge of reality, which cannot be refuted.

The development of science is characterized by the desire for absolute truth as an ideal, but the final achievement of this ideal is impossible. Reality cannot be exhausted to the end, and with each new discovery, new questions arise. In addition, the unattainability of absolute truth is due to the imperfection of the means of knowledge available to man. At the same time, each discovery is at the same time a step towards absolute truth: in any relative truth there is some part of absolute truth.

In a statement ancient Greek philosopher Democritus (V century BC) “the world consists of atoms” contains a moment of absolute truth, but in general, the truth of Democritus is not absolute, since it does not exhaust reality. Modern ideas about the microworld and elementary particles more accurate, however, they do not exhaust the reality as a whole. Each such truth contains elements of both relative and absolute truth.

Approaches according to which truth is only relative lead to relativism if it is considered that it is only absolute, - to dogmatism.

Absolute truth in its broadest sense should not be confused with eternal or banal truths, such as "Socrates is a man" or "The speed of light in a vacuum is 300 thousand km / s." Eternal truths are absolute only in relation to specific facts, and for more essential provisions, for example, for scientific laws, and even more so for complex systems and reality in general, there are no complete and exhaustive truths.

In Russian, in addition to the concept of "truth", the concept is also used "truth", which is much broader in its meaning: truth is a combination of objective truth and moral justice, the highest ideal not only for scientific knowledge, but also for human behavior. As V.I. Dal said, truth is “truth in deed, truth in goodness”.

Lies and delusion

Lies and delusion act as the opposite of truth and denote a discrepancy between judgment and reality. The difference between them lies in the fact of intentionality. So, delusion there is an unintentional discrepancy between judgments of reality, and False - the deliberate erection of misconceptions into truth.

The search for truth, therefore, can be understood as a process constant struggle against lies and delusion.

№39 The ratio of faith and reason.

FAITH AND MIND

Posted on 3 January 2012 by admin in WESTERN CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF THE MIDDLE AGES with No Comments

Christian philosophy proclaimed the knowledge of God and the salvation of the human soul as the highest goal of human aspirations. This thesis has not been challenged by anyone. But the question of how the knowledge of God is achieved had different solutions. In most cases, the problem rested on the relationship between faith and reason.

The most important role of faith in the knowledge of God is substantiated in the biblical Revelation. Faith becomes not only the highest spiritual faculty of the soul, so to speak, in an abstract sense, but also the highest cognitive faculty. There were objective reasons for this. The authoritative indication of the Bible on the significance of faith is only a part of them. The other was connected with the biblical subjects themselves, ideas and subsequent church dogmas. What they claimed did not fit into the framework of human experience, and sometimes even looked fantastic. To prove, for example, the origin of a woman from Adam's rib was, to put it mildly, difficult. Therefore, there was only one way out - the rejection of the rational understanding of divine miracles (after all, they are supernatural!) And the perception of them on faith. That is why Tertullian exclaims: "I believe, because it is absurd!" This thesis dismisses the very need for a reasonable explanation of the truths of Revelation.

Here we must separate the wheat from the chaff. The fact is that the necessity and meaning of faith, which Christ points to, often differ significantly from the causes and meaning of faith, to which theologians appeal. Christ calls to believe in the truths that he has known objectively and reliably, since he is not able, for certain reasons (the secrecy of the spiritual teaching and the inability of the uninitiated to know it), to substantiate these truths. This is confirmed by the New Testament, which notes that the Teacher spoke to the crowd “only a parable”, which had to be believed, and “he explained everything to the disciples in private” (Mark 4:10,11,33,34; Matt. 13:2 ,34,36; Luke 8:10).?

Hence the symbolism of the New Testament, i.e. the presentation of truths not in plain text, but in symbols. Of course, and Old Testament was no less symbolic. The most enlightened theologians and philosophers understood this well. “Where can you find such an idiot,” Origen, the greatest Christian thinker of the early Middle Ages (III century), was perplexed, “who would believe that God planted trees in Paradise, in Eden, like a tiller…?” Each person, he argues, should consider all these plots "as images, under which a hidden meaning is hidden." Nevertheless, despite the fact that medieval thinking was distinguished by considerable symbolism, many biblical provisions were interpreted almost literally. Consequently, belief in them in such cases did not come from knowledge, but quite the opposite - from the inability to rationally explain this or that situation.

Thus, one of the medieval traditions (mainly in the periods of patristics and early scholasticism) denied the possibility of rational knowledge of God and Revelation. Moreover, reasonable knowledge, as well as education in spiritual quests, were considered harmful (Peter Damiani - XI century) or, at best, useless and vain (Bernard of Clairvaux - XI-XII centuries). This view, characteristic of monastic mysticism and theology, after many centuries will lead to the separation of the spheres of influence of religion and scientific and philosophical thought, which will have both its positive (a departure from church dogmatism and obscurantism) and negative (dehumanization of science, deviation from ethical principles, etc.) meaning.

Another tradition, characteristic of the scholastic stage, recognized certain rights for reason. The thesis of Anselm of Canterbury, compared to the principle of Tertullian, is already more constructive: "I believe and I understand." Thomas Aquinas (XIII century) goes further and tries to reconcile faith and reason. On the one hand, this reconciliation again does not look in favor of reason and philosophy. The priority of faith is preserved. And philosophy, like Damiani, is reduced to the position of the "servant" of theology. On the other hand, the position of Aquinas contributes to a certain rehabilitation of the mind, which the scholastics cease to perceive as an opponent of faith. The mind, guided by the light of Revelation, allows a person to draw closer to God. Thus, the truths of reason and the truths of faith do not contradict each other.

This postulate of Thomas Aquinas, being transferred to the modern cultural space, opens the way to a mutual dialogue between religion and science. Moreover, some of the latest scientific trends substantiate the validity of the philosophical statements of Jesus Christ.

“ESOTERIC SYMBOLISM OF THE BIBLE AND THE SCHOLASTIC METHOD OF PHILOSOPHY

"Esoteric" - means inner, hidden, intimate. Many biblical works are based on the esoteric philosophical tradition and themselves retain a considerable amount of esotericism. The most important ideas of Revelation are expressed in symbolic language: the creation of the world and man, God the Father and God the Son, the Kingdom of God, heaven and hell, and many others. An adequate understanding of these symbols presupposes the possession of a semantic key that transfers them from the realm of fantastic religious mythology to the realm of objective scientific philosophy. There is an opinion that not even all the direct disciples (apostles) of Christ fully possessed this key. Adepts of esoteric philosophy claim that only Christ explained the most intimate provisions of his teaching to Mary Magdalene when he appeared to her for several years after his resurrection. All records, now almost lost, formed the basis of the philosophy of the Gnostics. This is where their secret teaching comes from. And that's why they took the path of the symbolic hermeneutics of the Bible.

But the knowledge of the Gnostics was recognized as heretical by the orthodox church. So she took a different path.

Instead of the unspoken principle supposed by the Gnostics, "The Word is a Symbol," scholastic philosophy gradually came to the assertion of another unspoken principle: "The Word is reality." In other words, it was assumed that the structure of a true thought (and, as a consequence, of a word) always definitely and accurately reflects the structure of being (isomorphism). Scholasticism addresses the problems of logic - how concepts (“words”) relate to each other and what is behind them. At the same time, concepts are considered not as intermediaries between objective truth and its reasonable understanding, but as this truth itself.

The impulse to scholastic thinking was given by the logical writings of Boethius. But he understands logic in a peculiar way. He is not interested in laws, not in the rules of thought, but in purely theological questions. For example: “How is the Trinity one God and not three Deities?” The Gnostics solved them by revealing them symbolic meaning. But Boethius does not know how to do this. He plunges into the analysis of verbal constructions, which express dogmatic truths.

A few centuries later, the method of Boethius was developed and became widespread during the heyday and late scholasticism. It is called the scholastic method. Its essence is the study of concepts and verbal-linguistic constructions in isolation from reality. With this perverted form of dialectics, medieval philosophers tried to rationally comprehend theological ideas. This led to empty verbiage, many hours of discussions and multi-volume conceptual reasoning, the objective substantive value of which was very small. Philosophical thought turned out to be not only the "servant" of theology, it was excommunicated from real life problems and forced to deal with the problems of sometimes dead, verbal forms. Such was the unsuccessful attempt to use the conceptual dialectic in its scholastic interpretation as a key to the esoteric symbolism of Revelation.

In the Renaissance, scholasticism is opposed by mystical Christianity, the revived Neoplatonism, and the emerging secular philosophy and science. The symbolism of the Bible will remain a mystery to the general public for several centuries. It will be ajar only by the end of the 19th century.

MIND AND FAITH

REASON AND FAITH - the fundamental ratio of the two abilities of the human soul, which has become the most important philosophical and theological problem throughout the history of thought. "

In Antiquity, questions of faith were discussed in the context of knowledge, to substantiate the initial self-evident axioms and principles, or to characterize the sphere of opinion. The right to be whole was recognized for Mind.

In the Middle Ages, with the change in ontological principles, the meaning and meaning of faith changed. From now on, the ways of human existence assumed confession, prayer, instructions (conditions of faith), which were the way to gain eternal and unchanging truth.

Three periods can be distinguished during which the angles of view on the problem of the relationship between reason and faith shifted. The first is before the 10th century, when reason and faith were conceived on the basis of authority. The second - 10-12 centuries, when disciplinary diverging theology and philosophy raise the question of justifying authoritative judgments by reason. Scripture, and the truths of reason that require proof.However, all three periods are characterized by common features.The Christian idea of ​​the creation of the world by a trinity of God - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, that is, Omnipotence, the Word-Logos and Goodness, was based on the revelation of Holy Scripture. The recognition of a higher power, which creates the world with reason and good will, gave grounds for demanding faith, which, due to the incomprehensibility of this act of creation, could not be considered exclusively in a cognitive context. Recognition of the limitations of the human mind in comparison with Divine Wisdom meant that the mind participates in the knowledge of God, together with other, no less important abilities; a person was considered concentrated only when his intellect was reduced to the heart, that is, when the mind became diligent and the heart prophetic. From now on, a person appeared not in two dimensions - soul and body, as in Antiquity, but in three - body, soul and spirit, where the spirit carried out the communion of man to God through goodness, thereby giving faith an ontological status, philosophy directed to the beginnings of being, from now on could not ignore faith and certainly had to join in the search for correspondences between reason and faith. Already in the 2nd century in contrast to Gnosticism, which preached the impossibility of the unity of reason and faith, representatives of the Alexandrian catechetical school, and above all Clement of Alexandria, proclaimed their harmony, believing that the harmony of faith and knowledge can make a person a conscious Christian. Faith in a good and rational foundation of the world is the beginning of philosophy. A rightly directed mind contributes to the strengthening of faith.

Faith presupposes the existence of indefinable principles (Light, Reason, Beauty, Life, Good, Wisdom, Omnipotence, One, Thinking, Love), which can be witnessed or contemplated, as well as the transformation of the entire human being, who is aware of his contact with God, enlightening person. This inner light overshadows philosophy itself. In this sense, philosophical reason goes into voluntary slavery to religion. Philosophy is seen as the servant of theology.

Tertullian focused on the faith underlying being, because he considered the very name of Christ to be the subject of faith, which, in his opinion, comes from “anointing” or “pleasantness” and “kindness”. The meaning of this name refers, therefore, to the foundation of being (it is Kindness) as an unshakable principle; and to the originality of being, the path to which is cleared by communion and anointing. Attention to the idea of ​​the name is connected with the idea of ​​creation according to the Word, which together is both the deed and the witnessing of the deed through the name. The name as the “last word”, which has survived the vicissitudes of pronunciation, reflection, curtailment, becomes an object of faith. The name is evidence of tradition, which cannot be fiction, for fiction is peculiar to one person; it is a truth accessible to all and existing for all. Tradition as universal is the principle of trust, which is always ready for verification, which is faith proper. That which is not ready for verification is superstition unworthy of a Christian.

The guardian of continuity is the soul, "simple, uneducated, coarse." This soul is not a Christian, since Christians are not born, but it has reasons to become a Christian, arising from 1) the unreflected use of words in everyday language (“God is good”, “God gave, God took”, “God will give”, “God will judge ”, etc.), in which a person is immersed from birth, which makes him a proper person, i.e., inexperienced speaking about the name of God; 2) from harmonizing this simplicity with sacred institutions. The soul is sacralized by virtue of its nature, close to God as the first essence. Primacy allows you to judge the authority of the soul. Since its knowledge was received from God, the soul is a prophetess, an interpreter of signs, a seer of events. It is the first stage of God-given knowledge. On this basis, Tertullian builds a kind of ontology of knowledge: “the soul is older than the letter, the word is older than the book, and the feeling is older than the style, and the person himself is older than the philosopher and poet.” The soul “speaks” in any composition; since she speaks in it, by nature close to God, then “it is necessary to trust your writings” (Tertullian. Selected works. M., 1994, p. 88), all the more so - the writings of the Divine, for chronologically they are older than any other writing . With such a hierarchy of knowledge (God - nature - the soul, in which intuitively, which is faith, wisdom is contained in a folded form), the priority of Jerusalem over Athens is natural, that is, the priority of “simplicity of heart” over stoic, platonic and dialectical reasoning.

The philosophical task of Tertullian, who lived in an era when Christianity had not yet been consolidated, was the discovery of a faith based on the idea of ​​creation. A different task faced Augustine, who lived during the period of established Christian dogmas: the emphasis was on the mutual substantiation of reason and faith, in particular in the prayerful beginning of his “Confession”: “Give me, Lord, to know and comprehend whether to begin with invoking to Thee, or in order to glorify Thee; whether it is necessary first to know Thee or to call upon Thee. But who will call to You, not knowing You?.. Or, in order to know You, one must “call to You”? The ignorant can call not to You, but to someone else. I will seek You, Lord, calling on You, and I will call on You, believing in You, for this has been preached to us” (Confession. M., 1989, p. 53). Here we are talking about a consensual understanding of God through reason and faith: "I believe in order to understand, and I understand in order to believe." Understanding is the reward of faith - the main idea of ​​Augustine: "A person must be reasonable in order to want to seek God" ("On the Trinity"). Faith for him is indistinguishable from authority. Authority and reason are two principles that attract a person to knowledge under the condition of personal transformation.

John Scott Eriugena separates the concepts of faith and authority: authority is born from true reason and is the name of the bearer of this reason, while faith is the correctness of reason and, in this sense, reason itself, “true religion”, he identifies with “true philosophy”.

The second period is associated with the beginning of the disciplinary differentiation of the functions of philosophy and theology, which occurred at the time of the appearance of scholasticism. The development of the technique of logical research, the derivation of logic beyond the limits of grammar, associated with the works of Anselml of Canterbury, Gilbert of Porretan, Peter Abelard, led to the fact that the demonstration of the order of analogies of thinking was replaced by a system of proofs for the existence of God, which served as a formal basis for the autonomization of the mind. It became necessary to prove religious truths by rational means. Anselm of Canterbury presented the first proof of the existence of God. In the Monologue, he gave 4 a posteriori proofs (the first comes from the premise that everything strives for the good; there are many good things, but only one gives rise to others; the second - from the idea of ​​a non-spatial magnitude along the vertical, where there is a peak, in relation to which everything else will be inferior; the third - from being as a whole, the fourth - from the steps of perfection: the highest perfection crowns the hierarchy); in "Proslogium" - a priori (ontological or simultaneous) proof: from the analysis of thinking about God follows the inevitability of his existence. Reason here begins to act not just in the mode of faith, it articulates its own positions, different from faith, logically reconciling the foundations of religion. And although in the end their principles coincide, there are attempts to isolate reason and faith. This was most clearly expressed in the treatise of Peter Abelard “Yes and No”, where the opposing statements of different authorities on the same religious issue were brought together: the coordination of human freedom and Divine predestination, the ratio of the two (Divine and human) natures of Christ, the responsibility of man in context of Divine omniscience, unity and trinity of God. And although both Anselm and Abelard still repeat Augustine’s formula “I understand in order to believe, and I believe in order to understand,” the tendency for its internal rupture, opening up the possibility of philosophizing outside of faith, is obvious.

In the 12th century there are already such differently oriented philosophical schools as Shargr, Saint-Vigor, Lansk, Paris. The first studied the problems of mechanical and mathematical cosmology, the laws of which extended to the world of living nature, considered as the Book of Nature (Theodoric and Bernard of Chartres, Gilbert of Porretan). The Saint Vigor school was a model of speculative philosophy. lyro Saint Victor in "Didaskalikon" compiled a pyramid of sciences with hierarchical division, subordination, distinguishing them from the "seven free arts". The Lanskoy school developed ethical issues that were originally part of theology. The secular school of Abelard explored, in line with meditative dialectics, the problems of speech utterance, ethics and theology as a rational discipline.

The rational function of philosophy is emphasized in the treatises of John of Salisbury, who wrote that he preferred to doubt with academics than to come up with definitions for what is hidden and obscure. However, although a person strives to comprehend everything available to him with his mind, he must have the courage to recognize the existence of problems that exceed the capabilities of his intellect.

In the 13th c. The University of Paris, a free association of masters and students, was officially allowed to discuss questions of faith, which until then had been the responsibility of church hierarchs. There, for the first time, the faculties of theology and philosophy begin to exist autonomously. Almost simultaneously with the emergence of universities, monastic orders of Franciscans and Dominicans were created, who actively participated in scientific disputes. Philosophical treatises become the subject of wide discussion. The circle of research includes the ideas of Avicenna (Ibn Sana) and Averroes (Ibn Rushd), the Aristotelian originals of Physics and Metaphysics, which significantly transformed the intellectual image of the world. The main subjects of discussion were questions about the eternity of the world, the primacy of philosophy and the unity of the intellect. According to Averroes and his followers at the University of Paris, primarily Siger of Brabang, there is only one truth, it is reasonable, therefore, in the case of discrepancies between philosophy and theology in the interpretation of essential principles, one must take the side of philosophy. Truth also testifies to the eternity of the world and the unity of the intellect. The dispassionate, isolated, universal intellect (Averroes calls it possible) possesses immortality, which the individual mind lacks, receiving energy from the Divine mind. The latter influences the former through fantasy, imagination, sensory sensations, due to which forms of individual cognition are created.

The thesis about the immortality of only a possible, universal mind, self-sufficient and not part of the individual soul, came into conflict with the Christian dogma of a person's personal immortality. The idea of ​​the disintegration of everything individual after death nullified the question of a person's personal responsibility for his actions. Therefore, again at the forefront - and this is the third period - is the problem of the foundations of reason and faith. Thomas of Aquia, criticizing the Averroists for the idea of ​​the intellect as a substance “by its being separated from the body” and “in no way united with it as a form”, wrote, “that the aforementioned position is a mistake that opposes the truth of the Christian faith; this may seem quite clear to anyone. But deprive people of diversity in regard to the intellect, which alone of all parts of the soul is indestructible and immortal, and it follows that after death nothing but a single intellectual substance will remain of human souls; and, thus, there will be no distribution of rewards or retribution, and any difference between them will be erased ”(Fom Aquinas. On the unity of the intellect against the Averroists. - In the book: Good and Truth: Classical and Non-Classical Regulators. M., 1998, pp. 192-193). The five paths to God, pointing to his being, together are the paths leading to the unity of faith and reason.

Considering the problem of the autonomy of philosophy, Bonaventure believes that a person, even if he is able to know nature and metaphysics, can fall into error outside the light of faith. Therefore, according to Bonaventure, who follows Augustine in this matter, it is necessary to distinguish the reason led by faith, the purpose of which is to “search for God”, from the self-sufficient reason, which in fact can only be an instrument of theology, since it writes down what faith prescribes.

John Dut Scot rejects the Thomistic attitude to reconcile faith and reason, believing that philosophy and theology have different objects and methodology. Unlike philosophy, which represents methods of proof and demonstration, theology offers a way of persuasion, the first is based on the logic of the natural, the second on the logic of the supernatural and revelation. If the Averroists promote the substitution of philosophy for theology, then the Thomists and Augustinians promote the opposite. To avoid such a substitution, Duns Scotus proposes to criticize theological and philosophical concepts in order to develop a new philosophical discourse. The principle of unambiguity of being should replace the principle of ekvtokatsii. This principle meant "simply simple concepts”, not identified with others and unambiguous. The concept of being was applied to God, which was neutral with respect to the created and the uncovenant. Therefore, it met the requirements of simplicity and unambiguity. Such a concept Duns Scotus called imperfect. It is the first object of the intellect and contributes to understanding through the study of the modes of being that the cause of things is beyond the world of things, and this is the proof of the existence of God.

William Oaknam considered the mediation of reason and faith by philosophical or theological concepts futile, since the levels of the rational, based on the logical eye

appearances, and faith based on morality and not the result of obvious inferences, are asymmetrical. Therefore, the spheres of reason and faith do not intersect.

The theory of the duality of truth led not only to the disciplinary separation of philosophy and theology, but also to the almost complete disappearance of such a direction as conceptualism (up to the modern era). However, the phenomenon of the "believing mind" did not disappear in subsequent times, becoming from the universal basis of thinking or its part, or the basis of individual disciplines, primarily theology.

In modern times, attempts at the philosophical return of the “Living God” as opposed to the infinitely extended and external world of God the Object were undertaken by B. Pascal. His religious philosophy was a kind of reaction to the emerging scientific methodological thinking. The mind and heart, according to Pascal, are “the gates through which the worldview creeps into the soul” and which correspond to natural, clear and mutually substantiating principles - understanding and will (Pascal V. Pensées. R., 1852, p. 32). The order of the mind is beginnings and demonstrations, the order of the heart is love. These fundamental principles are not subject to proof, because “man does not have such natural knowledge that would precede these concepts and surpass them in clarity” (ibid., p. 21), and Pascal considers such a lack of evidence “not a defect, but rather a perfection” (ibid., p. 20). Neither the immensity of space, nor the immensity of time, number or movement, both the immeasurably small and the immeasurably great, cannot be substantiated, “but only through confident reasoning both of them acquire the utmost natural clarity, which convinces the mind much more than any speeches” (ibid., p. 20). The foundations of the heart and mind, according to Pascal, are the features of human nature, which in fact is the “union of two natures” - physical and Divine. Dual nature determines human freedom, since it is impossible to conceive of the non-freedom of that which has the Divine essence. Focusing on human existence with its natural oddities, which prompted the introduction of such concepts as Horror, Anguish, Fear, and on the application of the method of experimental sciences to questions of faith, Pascal, of course, belongs to the founders of the new thinking, although he reveals a medium * non-century-religious reaction on the logicism and methodologism of the emerging Sciengist trend, which allows the idea of ​​the Creator only in order to set the world in motion. Pascal, who opposes all philosophy, considers theology to be “the focus of all truths,” and philosophy to be a mediating discipline that “imperceptibly leads” to it.

The Enlightenment turned the mind into a starting point, identifying faith with prejudice and error. I. Kant, seeking to limit faith, along with liturgical religion, assumes the existence of a faith of reason (“religion within the limits of reason alone”) as a pure faith in goodness, moral laws, love and duty. F. V. I. Schelling, beginning with the affirmation of the religion of reason, at the end of his life came to the affirmation of the philosophy of revelation and theosophy as the highest development of religious faith. For G.V.F. For Hegel, the ascent from the abstract to the concrete is the way of introducing a person to faith and the truths of religion, which led him from criticizing Christianity and asserting a “positive religion” to rationalizing the Christian faith.

A. Schopenhauer, speaking out against Hegelian panlogism, great importance gave the idea of ​​a believing mind, believing science is not so much a cognitive activity as a function of the will. It is this distinction that determines his idea that “true virtue and holiness of thoughts have their primary source not in deliberate arbitrariness (deeds), but in knowledge (faith)” (The world as will and representation. - Collected works in 5 volumes, vol. 1. M., 1992, p. 374). With Kierkegaard, opposing any philosophical system capable of “enclosing the entire content of faith in the form of a concept,” considers himself a “free creator,” who does not promise and does not create any system, since only in a free study of the main categories, the relationship between ethical and religious, “teleological eliminating” ethics, it is possible to detect the paradox of faith and “how we enter faith or how faith enters us” (Kierkegaard S. Fear and Trembling. M-, 1993, pp. 16-17).

The problem of reason and faith is the most important for Christian philosophers and theologians, both Catholic - Augustinians, neo-Thomists (E. Gilson, J. Maritain), Jesuits (F. Ch. Copleston), and Protestant (P. Tillich). Their studies emphasize the theological context of medieval philosophy, although in the analysis of problems, reason and faith are for the most part divorced. But the very introduction of a theological context into the study of medieval philosophy significantly expanded the scope of philosophy itself, since, regardless of approaches (theological or logical), we are talking about addressing topics that arise in any philosophy as “eternal”. This approach contributed to a detailed study of medieval philosophy, which was until the beginning of the 20th century. abandoned, as evidenced by fundamental research and Gilson, and Maritain, and Copleston. Tillich places the theological mind in the field of culture, believing that both are based on the ideas of personalism, and linking the revival of a “living religion” with the concept of a personal God as a symbol indicating that “the center of our personality is comprehended through the manifestation of an inaccessible basis and abyss of being” (Theology of Culture. M., 1995, p. 332).

The problem of the believing mind (the term belongs to S. Khomyakov) is at the center of attention of Russian religious philosophy. In Russian philosophical thought (the works of V. S. Solovyov, V. Ya. Nesmelov, D. Shest, N. A. Berdyaev, P. A. Florensky, G. V. Florovsky, etc.), faith was the fundamental basis of all knowledge. The emphasis was placed precisely on faith, since such consciousness was based on dissatisfaction with secular non-religious culture, social and state hostility to the individual, and the superficial nature of spiritual values. Such differences from the Western European understanding of the leading role of reason in cognition were caused not only by criticism of the idea of ​​classical reason, but also by a general downplaying of the role of reason, which, on the one hand, strengthened the position of faith, and on the other hand, led to occultism and theosophical, anthroposophical and primitive mysticism. In the 2nd floor. In the 20th century, however, philosophical trends appeared that not only defend the significance of reason for modern thinking, but show the weakening of the position of explaining the world, bypassing rationality as the most important human cognitive ability. These philosophical trends simultaneously showed the limitations of the natural-scientific, cognizing (scientific) mind of the New Age, and defended the ideas of neo-rationalism (G. Bashlyar, I. Prigozhy). J. Searle, analyzing Western European thinking, which he calls the Western rationalistic tradition and deploying the ideas of the cognizing mind in its two forms (theory

theoretical reason and practical reason), considers rational faith not belonging to discipline, but a property of one of the types of knowing reason, namely theoretical (Searle J. Rationality and realism: what is at stake? - “The Way”, 1994, No. 6, p. 203 ).

In the concept of the dialogue of cultures by V. S. Bibler, in general, a single definition of reason for all eras is called into question. “At one point, the ancient, medieval, new European spiritual spectra are concentrated and mutually determine each other, revealing simultaneous (actually cultural) being” (Bibler V.S. From science to the logic of culture. Two philosophical introductions to the XXI century. M., 1991, p. .263). Appeal to the initial principles of philosophy is a condition for the self-determination of man. The believing mind, involved in a single universal subject, turns out to be one of the forms of this self-determination.

№40 Social philosophy.

It is a kind of knowledge that objectively reflects the properties of the perceived object. is one of two kinds of truths. It represents adequate information regarding the appropriate object.

The difference between relative truth and absolute truth

As has already been said, the truth may be the truth is some unattainable ideal; it is absolute knowledge about an object, fully reflecting its objective properties. Of course, our mind is not so omnipotent as to know the absolute truth, which is why it is considered unattainable. In reality, our knowledge of an object cannot fully coincide with it. Absolute truth is more often considered in connection with the very process of scientific knowledge, which characterizes from the lower levels of knowledge to the highest. Relative truth is a kind of knowledge that does not fully reproduce information about the world. The main characteristics of relative truth are the incompleteness of knowledge and its proximity.

What justifies the relativity of truth?

Relative truth is knowledge obtained by a person with the help of limited means of cognition. A person is constrained in his knowledge, he can know only a part of reality. It is connected with this that all truth comprehended by man is relative. Besides, truth is always relative when knowledge is in the hands of people. Subjectivism, a clash of different opinions of researchers, always intervenes in the process of obtaining true knowledge. In the process of obtaining knowledge, there is always a collision of the objective world with the subjective. In this regard, the concept of delusion comes to the fore.

Fallacies and Relative Truth

Relative truth is always incomplete knowledge about the object, mixed with subjective characteristics. Delusion is always initially taken as true knowledge, although it has no correspondence with reality. Although delusion reflects one-sidedly some moments, relative truth and delusion are not at all the same thing. Fallacies often enter some scientific theories (relative truths). They cannot be called completely false ideas, since they contain some threads of reality. That is why they are accepted as true. Often, some fictitious objects are included in the composition of relative truth, since they contain the properties of the objective world. Thus, relative truth is not delusion, but it can be part of it.

In fact, all the knowledge that a person has at the moment and considers true is relative, since they reflect reality only approximately. The composition of relative truth may include a fictitious object, the properties of which do not correspond to reality, but have some objective reflection, which makes us consider it true. This happens as a result of the collision of the objective cognizable world with the subjective characteristics of the cognizer. Man as a researcher has very limited means of cognition.