Idealism in philosophy is a spiritual principle. The Basic Question of Philosophy

It largely depends on the wording of its main question. Philosophers have different ideas about the content of such a question.

The Basic Question of Philosophy

Yes, F. Bacon singled out in philosophy as the main -the question of expanding human power over nature, thanks to knowledge of the phenomena of the surrounding world and the introduction of knowledge into practice.

R. Descartes and B. Spinoza identified as the main issue of philosophy the question of gaining dominance over external nature and the improvement of human nature.

K. A. Helvetius considered the main question to be the question of the essence of human happiness.

J.-J. Rousseau reduced this question to the question of social inequality and ways to overcome it.

I. Kant considered the main question in philosophy to be the question of how a priori knowledge is possible, that is, knowledge that is obtained through pre-experimental means, and I. G. Fichte reduced this question to the question of the fundamental principles of all knowledge.

For the famous Russian philosopher S. L. Frank, the question sounded like this: what is a person and what is his true purpose, and the famous representative of French existentialism A. Camus believed that in this capacity the question of Is life worth living?

In modern Russian philosophical thought, many experts consider the main question of the relationship of thinking to being, consciousness to matter. This formulation of the main question of philosophy is reflected in the work of F. Engels “Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy" It notes: “The great fundamental question of all, especially modern philosophy there is a question about the relationship of thinking to being,” and further, “philosophers have divided into two large camps according to how they answer this question,” i.e., into materialists and idealists. It is generally accepted that the main question in this formulation has two sides. The first is associated with the answer to the question of what is primary - matter or consciousness, and the second side is associated with the answer to the question of the knowability of the world.

First, let us consider a question related to the first side of the main question of philosophy.

Idealists

As for idealists, they recognize the primary idea, spirit, consciousness. They consider the material to be a product of the spiritual. However, the relationship between consciousness and matter is not understood equally by representatives of objective and subjective idealism. Objective and subjective idealism are two varieties of idealism. Representatives of objective idealism (Plato, V. G. Leibniz, G. W. F. Hegel, etc.), recognizing the reality of the existence of the world, believe that in addition to human consciousness there is a “world of ideas”, “world mind”, i.e. something that determines all material processes. In contrast to this view, representatives of subjective idealism (D. Berkeley, D. Hume, I. Kant, etc.) believe that the objects that we see, touch and smell are combinations of our sensations. Consistent implementation of such a view leads to solipsism, that is, to the recognition that only the cognizing subject actually exists, who, as it were, invents reality.

Materialists

Materialists, on the contrary, defend the idea that the world is an objectively existing reality. Consciousness is considered derivative, secondary in relation to matter. Materialists take the position of materialistic monism (from the Greek monos - one). This means that matter is recognized as the only beginning, the basis of all things. Consciousness is considered a product of highly organized matter - the brain.

However, there are other philosophical views on the relationship between matter and consciousness. Some philosophers consider matter and consciousness as two equivalent bases of all things, independent of each other. Such views were held by R. Descartes, F. Voltaire, I. Newton and others. They are called dualists (from the Latin dualis - dual) for recognizing matter and consciousness (spirit) as equal.

Now let us find out how materialists and idealists solve the question related to the second side of the main question of philosophy.

Materialists proceed from the fact that the world is knowable, our knowledge about it, tested by practice, can be reliable, and serves as the basis for effective, purposeful activities of people.

Idealists in resolving the issue of the knowability of the world were divided into two groups. Subjective idealists doubt that knowledge of the objective world is possible, and objective idealists, although they recognize the possibility of knowledge of the world, make human cognitive abilities dependent on God or otherworldly forces.

Philosophers who deny the possibility of knowing the world are called agnostics. Concessions to agnosticism are made by representatives of subjective idealism, who doubt the possibilities of knowing the world or declare some areas of reality fundamentally unknowable.

The existence of two main directions in philosophy has social foundations or sources and epistemological roots.

The social basis of materialism can be considered the need of some sections of society to base their practical activities on experience or rely on the achievements of science, and its epistemological roots are claims to the possibility of obtaining reliable knowledge about the phenomena of the world being studied.

The social foundations of idealism include the underdevelopment of science, disbelief in its capabilities, disinterest in its development and use of the results of scientific research of certain social strata. To the epistemological roots of idealism - the complexity of the process of cognition, its contradictions, the possibility of separating our concepts from reality, raising them to the absolute. V.I. Lenin wrote: “Straightforwardness and one-sidedness, woodenness and ossification, subjectivism and subjective blindness... (these are) the epistemological roots of idealism.” The main source of idealism lies in exaggerating the importance of the ideal and downplaying the role of the material in people's lives. Idealism developed in the history of philosophy in close connection with religion. However, philosophical idealism differs from religion in that it puts its evidence in the form of theorizing, and religion, as noted earlier, is based on the recognition of the indisputable authority of faith in God.

Materialism and idealism are two currents in world philosophy. They are expressed in two different types of philosophizing. Each of these types of philosophizing has subtypes. For example, materialism appears in the form of spontaneous materialism of the ancients (Heraclitus, Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius Carus), mechanical materialism (F. Bacon, T. Hobbes, D. Locke, J. O. La Mettrie, C. A. Helvetius, P. A . Holbach) and dialectical materialism(K. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin, G. V. Plekhanov, etc.). Idealism also includes two subtypes of philosophizing in the form of objective idealism (Plato, Aristotle, V. G. Leibniz, G. W. F. Hegel) and subjective idealism (D. Berkeley, D. Hume, I. Kant). In addition, within the framework of the named subtypes of philosophizing, special schools with their inherent features of philosophizing can be distinguished. Materialism and idealism in philosophy are in continuous development. There is a debate between representatives of both, which contributes to the development of philosophizing and philosophical knowledge.

Rationalism

Rationalism is a widespread type of philosophizing. which means recognizing the value and authority of reason in knowledge and in the organization of practice. Rationalism can be inherent in both materialism and idealism. Within the framework of materialism, rationalism allows for the possibility of a reasonable explanation of all processes in the world. Philosophers who take the position of materialistic rationalism (K. A. Helvetius, P. A. Golbach, K. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin and others) believe that people, relying on the consciousness formed in them in during interaction with nature, they are able to carry out cognitive activity, thanks to which they can achieve adequate awareness of the objects of the world around them and on this basis rationally, i.e., rationally, optimally, economically organize practice. Idealistic rationalism, typical representatives which are F. Aquinas, W. G. Leibniz and G. W. F. Hegel, adhere to the view that the basis of all things is reason, which rules everything. At the same time, it is believed that human consciousness, which is a product of the highest divine mind, is capable of comprehending the world and providing the opportunity for a person to act successfully.

Irrationalism

The opposite of rationalism is irrationalism, which, belittling the importance of reason, denies the legitimacy of relying on it both in knowledge and in practice. Irrationalists call revelation, instinct, faith, and the unconscious the basis for human interaction with the world.

In addition to the above-mentioned grounds, the nature of philosophizing can be mediated by such principles as monism, dualism and pluralism. Monism can be both idealistic and materialistic. Those who adhere to idealistic monism consider God, or the world mind, the world will, as a single origin. According to materialistic monism, matter acts as the first principle of all things. Monism is opposed by dualism, which recognizes the equality of the two principles of consciousness (spirit) and matter.

Philosophers who consider the most equal different points point of view, are called pluralists (from the Latin pluralis - multiple). The assumption of pluralism in the presence of a high philosophical culture in conditions of uncertainty of social goals and objectives gives rise to the possibility of open discussion of problems, lays the ground for polemics between those who defend different, but legitimate, this moment public life ideas, hypotheses and constructions. At the same time, the formal and rigid use of this principle can create the basis for equalizing the rights of true, truly scientific and false opinions and thereby complicate philosophizing as a process of searching for truth.

The variety of types and forms of philosophizing, emerging on the basis of a combination of different approaches to understanding the phenomena and processes of the surrounding world, helps to find answers to numerous questions of an ideological, methodological and practical nature. This turns philosophy into a system of knowledge useful for solving both social and individual problems. The acquisition of such status by philosophy makes it necessary for every educated person to study it. For his life success the intellectual is problematic without joining it.

Idealism is the main thing philosophical direction, affirming the primacy of consciousness, thinking, the spiritual, the ideal and the secondary nature, dependence of matter, nature, and the world.

All idealist philosophers recognize that being depends on consciousness, depends on consciousness, but they explain differently how consciousness gives rise to being. Idealism has two main forms:

• - objective idealism, which considers consciousness as an extra-natural, superhuman, objective spiritual principle that creates the whole world, nature and man.
• - subjective idealism, which understands being not as existing outside human consciousness objective reality, but only as a product of the activity of the human spirit, the subject.

The French materialist D. Diderot in 1749 called idealism “the most absurd of all systems.” But the historical, epistemological and social origins of idealism are very deep, and besides, this direction was considered the main one by many brilliant philosophers.

The historical roots of idealism are the anthropomorphism inherent in the thinking of primitive people, the humanization and animation of the entire surrounding world. Natural forces were considered in the image and likeness of human actions, determined by consciousness and will. In this, idealism, especially objective idealism, is closely related to religion.

The epistemological source of idealism is the ability of human thinking for theoretical knowledge. In its very process, it is possible for thought to separate from reality and go into the realm of imagination. Education general concepts(man, goodness, truth, consciousness) and an increasing degree of abstraction are necessary in the process of theoretical thinking. The separation of these concepts from material objects and treating them as independent entities leads to idealism. Epistemological roots this direction go back far into history. When society began to stratify into classes, mental work became distinctive feature, the privilege of the dominant population. Under these conditions, they monopolize mental labor, direct politics, and material and production activities become the lot of the working masses. This situation created the illusion that ideas are the main determining force, and ordinary material labor is something inferior, secondary, dependent on consciousness.

IN Ancient Greece Pythagoras (580-500 BC) considered numbers to be the independent essences of things, and the essence of the Universe was the harmony of numbers. Plato (427-347 BC) is considered the founder of the philosophical system of objective idealism. He argued that in addition to the world of things, there is also a world of ideas that a person can see only “with the eyes of the mind.” In this world there are ideas of a ball, an amphora, a person, and concrete copper balls, clay amphoras, living people are only material embodiments of ideas, their imperfect shadows. What everyone takes for the real world is in fact only a shadow of a world of ideas hidden from humanity, spiritual world. For Plato, the world of ideas was the divine kingdom in which, before the birth of a person, his immortal soul dwells. Landing on earth and temporarily being in a mortal body, the soul remembers the world of ideas; this is precisely what the true process of cognition consists of. Plato's idealism was criticized by his brilliant student Aristotle (384-322 BC): “Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer!” Aristotle considered matter eternal, uncreated and indestructible

The ideas of objective idealism in modern times were developed by the German philosopher G. Leibniz (1646-1716). He believed that the world consists of the smallest elements, monads, active and independent, capable of perception and consciousness. The monad in this system is an individual world, a mirror of the universe and the infinite Universe. The harmony established by God gives the monads unity and coherence. The lowest of them have only vague ideas about the surrounding world (mountains, water, plants), the consciousness of animals reaches the level of sensation, and in humans - the mind.

Objective idealism reached its highest degree of development in the philosophy of G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831). Hegel considered the basis of everything that exists to be the World Mind, which he called the Absolute Idea or the Absolute Spirit. The Absolute Idea is constantly evolving, giving rise to a system of concepts. In the process of its development, it acquires a material shell, appearing first in the form of mechanical phenomena, then chemical compounds, and ultimately gives birth to life and man. All nature is the “Kingdom of petrified concepts.” With the advent of man, the Absolute Idea breaks through the material shell and begins to exist in its own form - consciousness, thinking. With the development of human consciousness, the Idea is increasingly freed from matter, cognizing itself and returning to itself. Hegel's idealism is imbued with the idea of ​​development and dialectics. Objective idealism separates general concepts and laws from specific individual things and phenomena, absolutizing ideas and explaining them as the primary essences of the world.

Subjective idealism proves the dependence of existence on human consciousness, identifying observed phenomena and objects with sensations and perceptions. “The only reality is the consciousness of the subject himself, and the world is only a projection of this consciousness outside.”

The classic version of subjective idealism is the teaching of the English bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753). In his opinion, all things are actually just stable combinations of sensations. Let's consider his theory using the example of an apple. A complex of feelings reflected by consciousness: red, hard, juicy, sweet. But the development of such an idea would lead to the conclusion that there is nothing at all in the world except sensations. This extreme is called solipsism (Latin solus - “one”, Latin ipse - “himself”). Trying to avoid solipsism, Berkeley argued that sensations do not arise in us arbitrarily, but are caused by the influence of God on the human soul. Thus, each time the deepening and upholding of subjective idealism sooner or later leads to a transition to religion and objective idealism.

IN modern philosophy Existentialists S. Kierkegaard (1813-1855), L. Shestov (1866-1938), N. Berdyaev (1874-1848), M. Heidegger (1889-1976), G. Marcel (1889-1973) are close to subjective idealistic views ), J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), A. Camus (1913-1960). The starting point for existentialists is not the essence (essentia) of the objective world, but the existence (exsistentia) of an individual person with his feelings and experiences. Therefore, the task of philosophy is not the study of being as the essence of the world, but the discovery of the meaning of human existence, true existence. Only through understanding the meaning of his existence can a person judge what is outside him, in the world around him. Scientific knowledge of things, writes K. Jaspers, cannot answer the question about the meaning of life and the meaning of science itself. For existentialists, the true form philosophical knowledge is intuition, a direct vision of the meaning of the reality in question, which represents the subjective experiences of the individual. They distinguish between the genuine and inauthentic existence of a person in the world: genuine - free, where a person will make his own decisions and be responsible for his actions; inauthentic - the individual’s immersion in everyday life. Closely related to subjective idealism is another philosophical trend of the twentieth century - personalism (Latin persona - “personality”). Personalists consider a person in two aspects: spiritual - a person-personality and material - a person-individual. Man is a person because he has a free and reasonable spiritual fundamental principle, freedom of choice and independence from the world. An individual person is a particle of matter, that is, nature and society, subject to their laws. But if the individual person is subordinate to society, the state, then the individual person is subordinate only to God. This, according to personalists, proves the need for religion, which connects man with the supreme, divine Person and reveals the secrets of existence.

Idealism is often difficult to reconcile with real life, but it cannot be considered as a set of continuous misconceptions. There are many ideas in idealistic teachings that play a large role in the development of human culture.

Idealism- an anti-scientific direction in philosophy, which, when resolving the main question of philosophy: the question of the relationship of thinking to being, in contrast to materialism, takes consciousness, spirit as primary and denies that consciousness is a product of matter. Idealism considers the world to be an embodiment. “consciousness”, “absolute idea”, “world spirit”. According to idealism, only our consciousness really exists, and the material world, existence, nature is only a product of consciousness, sensations, ideas, concepts.

The idealistic trend in philosophy falls into two main varieties: subjective idealism and “objective” idealism. Idealism, subjective, takes as the basis of the existing sensation, idea, consciousness of an individual, subject. This type of idealism is associated primarily with the name of the English bishop (see). Subjective idealism denies that behind sensations there are real objects independent of humans that act on our senses and cause certain sensations in us. This point of view inevitably leads to solipsism. Social practice, which at every step convinces us that human sensations, perceptions, and ideas reflect really existing objects, convincingly shows the anti-scientific nature of subjective idealism as one of the forms of idealistic philosophy.

In contrast to subjective idealism, “objective” idealism takes as the basis of what exists not personal, not subjective consciousness, but some mystical, “objective” consciousness, consciousness in general: “world mind”, “universal will”, etc., existing according to in the opinion of “objective” idealists, independently, independently of the person. In fact, there is and cannot be any objective consciousness, that is, one that exists independently of people. Idealism is closely related to religion and leads one way or another to the idea of ​​God.

Idealism is a faithful ally and assistant of religion. Pointing out that idealism is clericalism, Lenin emphasizes at the same time that “philosophical idealism is the road to clericalism through one of the shades of the infinitely complex knowledge of (dialectical) man.” Idealism has its roots in social life, as well as in the very process of knowledge. In the very process of cognition, in the process of generalizing phenomena, there is the possibility of separation of consciousness from reality, the possibility of transforming general concepts into an absolute, divorced from matter and deified.

So, for example, speaking about the relationship between really existing apples, pears, strawberries, almonds and their general concept of “fruit,” the “objective” idealist considers this concept (“fruit”) abstracted from real reality to be the basis of the very existence of these apples, pears, strawberries , almonds. In the same way, subjective idealism, on the basis that without sensations it is impossible to know objects, turns sensation into the only reality, denying the existence of the external world.
The social conditions for the emergence of philosophical idealism are the separation of mental labor from physical labor, the emergence of classes and exploitation. The idealistic explanation of natural phenomena was developed primarily by the ideologists of the reactionary classes. Therefore, as a rule, philosophical idealism played a reactionary role in the history of society: it fought against progressive forces, against democracy and science.

Idealism originated in ancient times. The representative of ancient Greek “objective” idealism was (see), who expressed the interests of the slave-owning aristocracy, an ardent opponent ancient democracy. Plato declared that the real world is a special, supersensible world of ideas, and the world of real things is a world of shadows, a world of pale reflections of ideas. IN feudal society idealistic religious scholasticism dominated, which turned philosophy into the handmaiden of theology. During the period of the decomposition of feudalism and the development of bourgeois relations, the revolutionary bourgeoisie of countries that were more economically developed (England, Holland) put forward a number of materialist philosophers ( - see, - see, - see, etc.). During the era of the establishment of capitalist relations in England, the forms of the struggle of idealism against materialism of English philosophers were Berkeley's subjective idealism and skepticism (see).

As an aristocratic reaction to the French revolution and French materialism in the 18th century. in Germany takes shape in the 18th century. and in the first third of the 19th century. idealistic philosophy: (see), (see), (see), (see). Hegel brought philosophical idealism to its extreme expression: but to Hegel, everything is an idea or the other being of an idea. Hegel was the last representative of that idealist philosophy, in which, despite idealism, there were some progressive elements (the “rational grain” of Hegelian dialectics).

Russian materialists of the 18th and 19th centuries played a major role in the struggle against philosophical idealism. - (see), (see), (see), (see), (see), (see), (see), (see), etc.

In its further development, idealistic philosophy degenerates, borrowing the most reactionary and mystical theories from the philosophical systems of the past. Idealist philosophy takes on a particularly reactionary character in the era of imperialism. IN late XIX and the beginning of the 20th century. The empirio-criticism of Mach and Avenarius, who revived Berkeleyism, became widespread.

Subjecting Machism to crushing criticism, Lenin wrote that “behind the epistemological scholasticism of empirio-criticism one cannot help but see the struggle of parties in philosophy, a struggle that ultimately expresses the tendencies and ideology of hostile classes modern society" But never before has idealistic philosophy been in such a state of insanity and decay as modern bourgeois philosophy. Hitlerism, based on an idealistic philosophy, showed what a mess anti-scientific, reactionary views on the development of society can and have led entire nations to. This is also evidenced by the idealistic philosophy of the ideologists of modern imperialists of the USA and other countries following in the footsteps of Hitlerism.

Renegades and traitors to the working class have always used and are using bourgeois philosophy as an ideological weapon to justify revisionism and opportunism. Defending the idea of ​​class cooperation and fighting against the idea of ​​proletarian revolution, revisionism rejected materialist dialectics, trying to eclectically combine the teachings of Marx with one or another idealist philosophy. Modern opportunists from the camp of right-wing socialists openly preach philosophical idealism and bend over backwards to discredit the all-conquering Marxism-Leninism that they hate. But all attempts by idealists to defend their reactionary cause are in vain. The progress of science and the victory of the forces of democracy and socialism lead to the fact that philosophical idealism is losing one position after another. The death of capitalism will mean collapse social foundations idealism.

In explanation social phenomena all philosophers before Marx and Engels, including pre-Marxian materialists, took an idealistic position, arguing that the main drivers of history are educated people, “heroes” who create history without the people, that the people are a passive, inert force, unable to rise to the level of history activities. These idealistic positions were occupied by Russian populists - see, all kinds of petty-bourgeois socialists, anarchists, etc.

Modern bourgeois philosophers, in order to prolong the existence of dying capitalism, use the most reactionary idealistic theories - racism, Catholicism, etc. Marx and Engels expelled idealism from its last refuge - from the field of science about society. Marxism indicated the true driving forces social development, discovering that the method of production of material goods is the main force of social development, that the creator of history is the people, the working masses. The founders of Marxism were the first to create a consistently materialist worldview that was completely hostile to idealism. The emergence of Marxist philosophical materialism meant a whole revolution in the centuries-old history of the development of materialist philosophy.

Idealism comes from the primacy of the spiritual, immaterial, and the secondary nature of the material, which brings it closer to the dogmas of religion about the finitude of the world in time and space and its creation by God. Idealism considers consciousness in isolation from nature, due to which it inevitably mystifies it and the process of cognition and often leads to skepticism and agnosticism. Consistent idealism opposes materialistic determinism with the teleological point of view about the presence in the world of objective non-human goals and expediency.

The philosophical term “idealism” should not be confused with the word “idealist” used in everyday language, in everyday discussions on moral topics, which comes from the word “ideal” and denotes an unselfish person striving to achieve lofty goals. In a philosophical sense, idealism in the ethical field means the denial of the conditionality of moral consciousness by social existence and the recognition of its primacy. The confusion of these concepts was often used by idealists in order to discredit philosophical materialism.

Bourgeois philosophers use the term “idealism” in many senses, and this direction itself is sometimes considered as truly philosophical. Marxism-Leninism proves the inconsistency of this point of view, however, in contrast to metaphysical and vulgar materialism, which views idealism only as absurdity and nonsense, it emphasizes the presence of epistemological roots in any specific form of idealism.

The historical sources of idealism are the anthropomorphism inherent in the thinking of primitive man, the animation of the entire surrounding world and the consideration of its driving forces in the image and likeness of human actions as determined by consciousness and will. Subsequently, the ability of abstract thinking itself becomes the epistemological source of idealism. The possibility of idealism is already given in the first elementary abstraction. The formation of general concepts and an increasing degree of abstraction are necessary moments in the progress of theoretical thinking. However, the incorrect use of abstraction entails hypostatization (raising to the rank of an independently existing object) properties, relationships, and actions of real things abstracted by thinking in isolation from their specific material carriers and attributing independent existence to these products of abstraction. Consciousness, thinking, size, form, goodness, beauty, conceived outside and independently of material objects and beings that possess them, as well as a plant “in general” or a person “in general”, taken as essences, or ideas embodied in things, - such is the false course of abstract thinking that leads to idealism.

This possibility of idealism becomes a reality only in the conditions of a class society, where idealism arises as a scientific continuation of mythological, religious and fantastic ideas. According to its social roots, idealism, in contrast to materialism, acts, as a rule, as a worldview of conservative and reactionary strata and classes that are not interested in the correct reflection of existence, in a radical restructuring public relations. At the same time, idealism absolutizes the inevitable difficulties in development human cognition and this hinders scientific progress. At the same time, individual representatives of idealism, posing new epistemological questions and exploring the forms of the process of cognition, seriously stimulated the development of a number of important philosophical problems.

In contrast to bourgeois philosophers, who count many independent forms of idealism, Marxism-Leninism divides all its varieties into two groups: objective idealism, which takes the personal or impersonal universal spirit, a kind of super-individual consciousness, as the basis of reality, and subjective idealism, which reduces knowledge about the world to the content of the individual consciousness. However, the difference between subjective and objective idealism is not absolute. Many objective-idealistic systems contain elements of subjective idealism; on the other hand, subjective idealists, trying to get away from solipsism, often switch to the position of objective idealism.

In the history of philosophy, objective-idealistic teachings initially appeared in the East (Vedanta, Confucianism). The classic form of objective idealism was the philosophy of Plato. A feature of Plato's objective idealism, characteristic of ancient idealism in general, is its close connection with religious and mythological ideas. This connection intensifies at the beginning of our era, during the era of the crisis of ancient society, when Neoplatonism develops, fused not only with mythology, but also with extreme mysticism.

This feature of objective idealism was even more pronounced in the Middle Ages, when philosophy was completely subordinated to theology (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas). The restructuring of objective idealism, carried out primarily by Thomas Aquinas, was based on a distorted Aristotelianism. The main concept of objective-idealistic scholastic philosophy after Thomas Aquinas became the concept of immaterial form, interpreted as target start, fulfilling the will of an extra-natural god who wisely planned the world, finite in time and space.

We can talk both about idealism in general and about its main types - subjective, objective, transcendental idealism. It is possible, depending on the goals, to go even further and consider, for example, the variety of concepts of objective idealism. To identify the essence of idealism as a type of philosophical thinking, the first two approaches will be required.

The basic principle of idealism is quite simple and expresses, as is easy to see, the very essence of the philosophical attitude to the world, if we understand philosophy as a worldview. “...What seems to us to be objective reality should be considered only in its relation to consciousness and does not exist outside of this relation” 230.

In other words, idealism, unlike science and natural philosophy, in no way claims to be an objective description of the world and man. It is more important to understand not what the world is in itself, but what the world is for a person, to establish the individual as the center of all meanings of the world. “...Only idealism, in all its forms, tries to grasp subjectivity as subjectivity and to be consistent with the fact that the world is never given to a subject or communities of subjects otherwise than as having significance for them with one or another experiential content in this correlation...” 231 .

E. Husserl calls this “the paradox of human subjectivity: being simultaneously both as a subject for the world and as an object in the world.” “From the side of the life world, we are objects among objects in it... On the other hand, we are subjects for this world, namely, as cognizing it in experience, thinking, evaluating, purposefully correlating with it, I-subjects, for whom this surrounding world has only the existential meaning that our experience, our thoughts, our assessments have ever given it...” 232.

Despite the variety of idealistic teachings, a general definition of idealism can be formulated: “Genuine philosophical idealism consists of nothing more than the following statement: the truth of things lies in the fact that objects as directly individual, i.e., sensory objects, are only appearances, phenomenon.<…>This universal in things is not something subjective, belonging exclusively to us, but as a noumenon, opposed to a transitory phenomenon, represents the true, objective, real in the things themselves, just as Platonic ideas exist in individual things as their substantial genera, and not where -or away from these things" 233.

Subjective idealism of D. Berkeley

…Common practice does not require

subtleties of speculative knowledge 234

D. Berkeley

First of all, it should be noted that only for “school” purposes can we talk about the complete opposition of subjective idealism and objective idealism. This, of course, is convenient for defining “labels,” but not a single doctrine is “obliged” to absolutely correspond to the label with which we “awarded” it. In addition, instead of hasty assessments, it is advisable to try to find useful ideas in the teaching, and not by “pulling out” only a few for spectacular quotations, but by linking them with the rest. With this formulation of the question, familiarity with the treatises of D. Berkeley undoubtedly helps in understanding such problems as the problem of origin, the problem of the cognizability of the world, as well as the opposition of materialism and idealism, the relationship between subjective idealism and objective idealism.

Subjective idealism can be considered as a logical continuation of D. Locke’s idea about the secondary qualities of things. These are "such quality, like colors, sounds, tastes, etc., which in fact do not play any role in the things themselves, but are forces that evoke various sensations in us...” 235. Secondary qualities, in contrast to primary, real, inseparable from the body - density, extension, shape and mobility - Locke calls “attributed”. “Locke’s naivety and inconsistency leads to the rapid formation of his empiricism, moving in the direction of paradoxical idealism and finally resulting in complete nonsense. The foundation remains sensationalism... Based on this, Berkeley reduces bodily things that appear to us in natural experience to the complexes of the sensory data themselves in which they appear.<…>Hume reaches the end in the indicated directions. All categories of objectivity, in which scientific and everyday life conceives of the objective world located outside the soul... are fictions” 236.

Subjective idealism thus comes from empiricism, but arrives at a position opposite to materialism. However, the recognition of subjective idealism as “complete nonsense” should hardly be considered an adequate assessment.

What gives grounds to suspect D. Berkeley of uttering nonsense? There are several interesting similar arguments, which will leave the reader perplexed. “Strangely, the opinion prevails among people that houses, mountains, rivers, in a word, sensible things, have an existence, natural or real, different from that which the mind perceives them.” "I see this cherry, I touch it, I taste it; I'm convinced that... she is real. Eliminate the feeling of softness, moisture, redness, astringency, and you will destroy the cherry. ...Cherry, I maintain, is nothing more than a combination of sensory impressions or ideas perceived by different senses...” “When I say that the table on which I write exists, it means that I see and feel it; and if I left my room, I would say that the table exists, meaning by this that if I were in my room, I could perceive it, or that some other spirit actually perceives it.” . “Since different ideas are observed together with one another, they are designated by one name and considered a thing. For example, they observe a certain color, taste, smell, shape, consistency connected together (togotogether), - they recognize this as a separate thing and designate it with the word apple; other collections of ideas (collectionsofideas) constitute a stone, a tree, a book, and similar sensual things, which, depending on whether they are pleasant or unpleasant, arouse the passions of hatred, joy, grief, etc.” 237.

Thus, a thing turns out to be the totality of my sensations or my ideas. Can I go beyond them into the objective world? In fact, the world and the objects of the world are given to man in the form of his awareness of the world and its objects. But what are they in themselves?

The question of the knowability of the world is undoubtedly one of the fundamental questions of worldview. Are our ideas about things similar to things, and if so, to what extent? Is a person able to form correct ideas about the aspects and properties of the objective world? F. Bacon, for example, did not doubt this possibility - the possibility of objective knowledge; To do this, it was only necessary to drive out the “idols of knowledge.” D. Berkeley is not sure about this. (Note that we can only talk about certainty or uncertainty, but in no way about proof.) Moreover, D. Berkeley is not at all confident not only in the possibility of objective knowledge, but even in the objective existence of things: “... if external bodies exist, then we can in no way acquire knowledge about this..." 238.

Should this be understood to mean that D. Berkeley is not sure of the existence of things that, for example, he, like all people, uses in Everyday life? - Of course no. Moreover, he agrees that in everyday life people act as if they really know things around them. By the way, to some this may seem to be a sufficient argument in favor of the fact that objective knowledge is possible. However, he distinguishes between reasoning at the level of ordinary consciousness and philosophical reasoning, although he criticizes “some philosophers”: “...Philosophers build their schemes not so much on the basis of concepts, but on the basis of words that were formed by the masses solely for convenience and speed in everyday everyday affairs without any relation to speculation." (Does this not remind one of F. Bacon’s “idols of the market?”) In this respect, the difference between the opinion of the crowd and the opinion of the philosopher is polar: the crowd is of the opinion that “ those things that we directly perceive are real things, and philosophers - that things directly perceived are ideas which exist only in the mind.” 239 .

What is the difference between the approaches of the ordinary and philosophical minds to the problem of the real existence of things? The philosopher wants to ultimately discover behind individual, sensory-given things a certain substance. D. Berkeley's reasoning about substance helps to clarify all the difficulties that exist in connection with the definition of matter as a substance, without which the construction of a philosophical materialist theory is impossible. D. Berkeley repeatedly emphasizes that he denies the existence not of material things, but of matter as a substance, since it is usually meant that the substance of material things is matter. "The only thing we deny the existence of is that philosophers called matter or corporeal substance. Denying it does not bring any harm to the rest of the human race, which, I dare say, will never notice its absence" 240.

Indeed, there are difficulties in defining matter as substance. They are mainly related to how legitimate it is to endow a substance with specific properties or whether it should be understood as a “bare” abstraction. If we accept that a substance must be active, since it is the cause, then such qualities that natural philosophers tend to attribute to matter, based on contemporary natural science concepts, are not combined with this idea. If we talk about matter as a substance “negatively” (apophatically), then it will turn out to be “an abstract idea of ​​essence” 241, and then matter as a substance will not differ in any way from spirit as a substance. There is no point in inventing any third name here. Since D. Berkeley understands active being as substance, then it is nothing more than spirit. He considers material substance to be a false hypothesis, since the concept of it is contradictory. And that's not all: “I have no reasonable basis for believing in the existence of matter. I have no direct intuition of it; and I cannot directly, on the basis of my sensations, ideas, concepts, actions and passions, conclude about the existence of a non-thinking, non-perceiving, non-active substance - neither with the help of correct deduction, nor with the help of a mandatory conclusion” 242. However, the situation is different with spiritual substance: a person realizes himself as a thinking substance through reflection, and based on this, through reflection, he comes to the concept of spiritual substance - the infinite mind of God.

“So I prove that this being is spirit. Based on the visible results, I conclude that there are actions. Since there are actions, there must also be an act of will; and since there is an act of will, then there is will. Further, the things that I perceive ... cannot exist except in the mind; therefore the mind exists. But will and mind constitute, in the narrowest sense, souls or spirit. Thus, the powerful reason for my ideas in the strict sense of the word is spirit" “The point of contention between the materialists and myself is not whether things have a real existence outside the mind of this or that person, but whether they have an absolute existence, distinct from that which they are perceived by God, and external to every mind.” 243.

So, God appears as a kind of supra-individual mind, which clearly resembles ideas objective idealism. The omnipresent eternal infinite spirit embraces all things; it established the laws of nature - those rules according to which ideas and their connections arise in us 244. Let us note right away that causality for D. Berkeley is just connections of ideas, which are nothing more than marks, habitual sequences of ideas in time. (The denial of the objective nature of causality will be the subject of the closest attention of D. Hume.)

Thus, with the advent of the idea of ​​​​the infinite spirit as a substance, the teaching of D. Berkeley begins to lean more and more towards the ideas of objective idealism and even in places resemble the objective idealism of Plato.

Thus, D. Berkeley writes about the dual existence of things: “one is ectypal, or natural,” created in time, “the other is archetypal, or eternal,” existing from eternity in the divine mind 245. In essence, this is no different from Plato’s two worlds: the visible world (the world of things) and the intelligible world (the world of ideas). The truth, the reality of a thing is rooted in ideas; and this already resembles not only the ideas of Plato, but also the general definition of idealism given by Hegel. But that is not all. D. Berkeley quite definitely states: “I am not for turning things into ideas, but rather ideas into things...” 246 - and this is just like Plato, for whom an idea was a semantic model of a thing. Ideas in the mind of God are prototypes of our ideas (just like the dependence of the individual Logos on the cosmic Logos).

What, then, is behind the well-known “formula” of subjective idealism “esse is percipi” - “to exist means to be perceived”? Perceived by whom? The simplest answer is either subjective or objective spirit, that is, either human consciousness or the infinite divine mind. However, the main thing is that the perception of a thing is not the basis for asserting its existence outside the spirit. How does D. Berkeley justify the “attachment” of a thing to the spirit?

D. Berkeley carefully examines the features of sensory perceptions, mainly “secondary qualities,” mainly visual ones. Even the ancient skeptics noticed how great the role of subjectivity is here: depending on a person’s condition, he can perceive the same thing differently - for example, when he is healthy or when he has a fever; They gave similar examples in relation to all senses. D. Berkeley writes about the same thing. However, he goes much further. For example, he asks to pay attention to the magnificent red and purple clouds: is this color really inherent in them? “Or do you think that they themselves have any other appearance than that of dark mist or vapor?” 247.

The question of distinguishing between “primary” and “secondary” qualities is important, of course, not in a scientific sense. The fact is that pleasure or displeasure in a person is caused, rather, by secondary qualities. However, it is impossible to understand these qualities - color, taste, smell, sound - outside of human subjectivity. But since the secondary qualities of things are the most important, and the primary ones are inseparable from the secondary ones, it turns out that things as a unity of primary and secondary qualities do not exist outside the mind... Sensation, like an idea (however, according to D. Berkeley, we can only perceive our own ideas, so that sensations and ideas are not radically different), is an act of the soul. It is impossible to argue with this, since, indeed, every human perception is meaningful, and therefore different people Looking with the same eyes, they see with different consciousnesses. So what can we say about things as opposed to how our mind perceives them?