Knowing people. Human cognition

The role of the intelligentsia is that it is the bearer of spirit (culture, knowledge), creating new paradigms and criticizing outdated ones.
Human cognition develops within the framework of a contradiction: sensory perception - abstract thinking, subject to the primacy of sensory perception.
At the first stage of human knowledge - mythological - consciousness first appears as the social consciousness of the community. Individual consciousness is still a cast of social consciousness as a result of the reflection of mythology in consciousness. Mythology is the instrument with the help of which “the objective is for him (that is, for consciousness) the essence” - Hegel’s correct description of the mythological stage of cognition and the consciousness corresponding to it. Thus, human knowledge begins not with abstract thinking, but with the sensory perception of the human community, which exercises primacy in relation to abstract thinking. Cognition at the first stage occurs within the framework of community consciousness and is tested by the practice of the community. The abstract thinking of an individual develops under the control of mythology, which then was not a set of ideas and rules, but a system of social actions that were the justification for a system of ideas (the objective is the essence for him).
But the development of abstract thinking under the control of social practice allowed him, at the second stage of cognition, to break out from under the yoke of the sensory perception of the community and raise consciousness to self-awareness. The first negation in the development of human knowledge occurred. Abstract thinking escapes from the control of the sensory perception of the community and acquires a certain freedom within the individual, although the individual is forced to be part of the community. Therefore, the primacy of sensory perception over abstract thinking becomes an indirect primacy through a worldview in the form of a conscious mythology, that is, a religious worldview. In this contradiction, self-awareness and the religious stage of cognition arise. Apparently, it continues to this day within the framework of the exploitative system. Sensory perception occupies the position of indirect primacy relative to abstract thinking through the medium of a religious worldview.

At the first stage of the second stage of cognition, the emerging self-consciousness as a negation of the consciousness of the community is based on the liberated abstract thinking of the individual, but still located in the system of concepts of mythology, which develops into religion. Freedom of abstract thinking, in addition to any mysticism, finds expression in the construction of abstract schemes of reality. The desire for the primacy of abstract thinking even within the framework of mythology leads to the search for the first causes or fundamental principles of the world among the ancient Greeks in the form of elements or parts of nature and receives its highest expression in Pythogoreanism (the whole world is a number) and in Platonism. It should be noted that there was the so-called line of Democritus or natural philosophy, as a continuation of the reliance on sensory perception, but it turned out to be just the forerunner of determinism. The limitations of the latter were understood by Epicurus and suggested, along with the law, the existence of chance, which was a revolution in knowledge, since before him it was accepted by default that everything that happens occurs according to the will of the gods, etc. Recognition of the existence of chance along with law undermines the claims of abstract thinking, operating on the basis of formal logic, to primacy over sensory perception. The highest achievement of the first stage of the religious stage of knowledge was Aristotle’s system, built on giving the phenomenon the properties of an essence, with the latter having primacy. Aristotle's teaching is a synthesis of the so-called natural philosophy and Platonism, with primacy belonging to Platonism.

The second stage of the religious stage of cognition manifested itself in the form of scholasticism - freedom of abstract thinking, but in the sphere of a religious worldview, through which the primacy of the sensory perception of society over individual abstract thinking was achieved. In this way, the first negation appeared within the framework of the religious stage of cognition. In the origins of scholasticism and its foundations we find Christianity and the teachings of Jesus - a call for a conscious striving for good, a call for freedom of abstract thinking, but within the framework of worship of God, who turned out to be essentially the personified Law. Preaching a conscious desire for good, for the knowledge of God, Jesus thereby revealed the subjectivity of abstract knowledge in relation to social practice (Marx: philosophers must change the world).

So, philosophy developed as abstract knowledge. For example, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) said: “Philosophy is knowledge, achieved by right reasoning, and explaining actions or phenomena from causes or productive reasons known to us, and, conversely, possible productive reasons from actions known to us.” Although the role of the philosophy of scholasticism was to create a theory of knowledge, and not to know. This subjectivity of abstract knowledge culminated within the framework of scholasticism with the construction of Hegel's system - an abstract theory of knowledge of abstract thinking. To explain, or rather to illustrate, the development of consciousness, Hegel was forced to supplement formal logic with dialectics, the transition of the object of study into its opposite, that is, the negation of itself. However, the desire to remain within the framework of formal logic forced Hegel to subordinate negation to identity, that is, to reduce development to simple repetition, which confused both himself and his epigones. While the practice of knowledge required subordinating formal logic to the dialectic of negation, which is what Marx later did.

The second negation opens the third stage of the religious stage of knowledge. Scholasticism experienced a bifurcation with the separation of scientific knowledge from it, which is a synthesis of scholasticism and natural philosophy, that is, the first and second stages of the religious stage of knowledge, subject to the primacy of the first stage. Thus, within the framework of the second stage of human knowledge, a contradiction between scholasticism and scientific knowledge arose. The emerging scientific knowledge as a theory of knowledge and as a negation of scholasticism adopted the philosophy of positivism, which is based on reliance on so-called scientific facts. However, this does not take into account the fact that these facts themselves are a derivative of abstract thinking, the result of the work of abstract thinking, which remains in the sphere of a religious worldview. Therefore, such scientific knowledge remains captive of determinism and, therefore, anything new for it becomes a miracle. The Hegelian dialectic of negation was rejected (I do not invent hypotheses - said the empiricists). However, the transition to the third stage of the religious stage of human knowledge occurred not so much on the initiative of the practice of knowledge, but under the pressure of the social practice of developing capitalism. This capital control of scientific knowledge has now reached perfection within the framework of the scientific grant system.

Thus, human knowledge at the third stage of the religious stage of knowledge bifurcated into scholasticism and scientific knowledge - the scientific picture of the world is opposed to the religious picture of the world and there is a constant struggle between them. From the 19th century until now, the scientific picture of the world has been a mosaic of disparate facts and theories, which can only be united by taking the position of development, that is, by accepting development as a primacy in relation to the universal connection. This broken scientific picture of the world cannot successfully resist the religious picture of the world simply because it rejects development. At the same time, the spontaneous development of capitalism showed the insufficiency of spontaneous development and the need for the conscious development of society, the conscious management of social processes.

Therefore, the need arose for a second negation within the framework of human cognition - a transition to the third stage of cognition through the bifurcation of scientific knowledge, with the formation of a new third stage, which should be called the technological stage of human cognition. It represents a synthesis of the first, mythological, and second, religious stages, subject to the primacy of the mythological stage, and the leading feature of this second negation will be the acceptance of development as the starting point of knowledge. As a result, a contradiction has arisen within human cognition - the technological stage versus the religious stage, and it is precisely thanks to this contradiction that scientific knowledge within the framework of the religious stage of cognition retains its primacy relative to scholasticism. Marx began the second negation within the framework of human knowledge, creating an economic theory of the development of capitalist production and showing the need to replace it with communist production with the help of the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, it should be noted that Marx assumed a simple negation of capitalism, that is, in the image of the first negation, as, say, feudal relations replaced slave relations. In fact, the transition from capitalism to communism is a second negation, that is, not a replacement with a transition to the opposite, as in the first negation, but a synthesis. Similarly, in the sphere of cognition, the second negation with the formation of the third stage means the synthesis of the first and second stages. The emerging contradiction between the technological and religious stages of cognition is manifested by the contradiction of formal logic and dialectics, determinism and development, permeating the practice of cognition. Any new knowledge refutes the formal logical system of scientific knowledge, therefore knowledge is promoted by enthusiasts who are forced to create a new picture of the world as opposed to established prevailing ideas and who are forced to accept development, rather than determinism, as the starting point of research.

During the bifurcation of the religious stage of cognition, self-consciousness will also experience a bifurcation with the emergence of reason as a synthesis of self-awareness and consciousness, subject to the primacy of consciousness. A new contradiction arises in society - reason versus self-awareness, subject to the primacy of reason. At the technological stage of cognition, the mind uses concepts that arise in self-consciousness in the system of formal logic in order to create a picture of the world using the theory of development. This can be called a synthesis of knowledge. Consequently, reason presupposes the subordination of formal logic to dialectics (theory of development), and self-consciousness is limited by formal logic and, therefore, is forced to absolutize it. Apparently, such a difference is determined by the organic structure of the brain, which allows one to rise to the understanding of a single consciousness not only of oneself (self-consciousness), but also to understand oneself as part of a developing society, a developing social consciousness in the case of reason, and the organic impossibility of such an elevation in the case of self-consciousness , for which development is organically unacceptable. The formation of the brain structure necessary for reasonable enthusiasm must begin with educating people in the developmental worldview system, that is, organizing in society a system for the development of people’s personality. Intelligent enthusiasts must create an environment for their functioning - a worldview of development. Through intelligent enthusiasm the problem of free will will eventually be solved. In a consumer society, the majority belongs to consumers, but since the growth of the level of consumption and personal development can only be ensured by the development of society, consumers depend on reasonable enthusiasts. Consumers, in principle, are not able to raise their self-awareness to reason, since they are only able to consume the knowledge or lies offered to them. These include the characteristic: fear of reality, fear of the truth, that is, intellectual cowardice (http://saint-juste.narod.ru/ne_spravka.html). Whereas reasonable enthusiasts, based on existing knowledge, create a picture of the developing world and obtain new knowledge. The synthesis of knowledge makes the practice of knowledge a subject of social development.

So, the pinnacle of human knowledge will be the third stage - the stage of synthesis of knowledge based on the theory of development as a theory of knowledge. But the third stage is formed as a result of the negation of the negation and is not a simple negation of the second stage, but a synthesis of the first and second stages. Therefore, scientific knowledge of the second stage will remain a necessary basis for the synthesis of knowledge.

Application. About personality development (https://langobard.livejournal.com/7962073.html)
(qt.) “After all his heartfelt arguments with the young arrested Zubatov comes to the conclusion that most of the revolutionaries are not fanatics at all, THEY simply HAVE NO OTHER OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THEMSELVES other than to join the underground.”
I share my views on the life of Mr. Zubatov - a man, as I understand it, not a very good man, but very smart.
It's not about ideas, values ​​and ideals. Not in the “material interests” of social groups. And not even in the holy of holies for political historians - not in “ripening contradictions”!
Namely, that Zubatov saw the light. When people reach the age at which they passionately want to “invent and build themselves,” they should have some satisfying opportunities for this. Consumption in a consumer society, interesting work and career advancement in a society of social mobility, creativity for the creative, science for the scientific...
If these opportunities to “invent and make yourself” are not there, then... then it will be “that’s it.”
It is probably impossible to come up with such possibilities that it would be possible to completely do without conflict, rebellion, revolution and other “punk”. You can't do without it completely.
There are simple natural rules. You want to live your youth in an interesting way. Interestingly, this means taking part in something new, so that the “ancestors” can be told: “But you didn’t have this!” Well, if you create something new, it will be super cool.
Youth differs from childhood in that, in contrast to the desire to play with interesting toys and slightly “lead the nose” of adults, a severe impulse-desire arises - to become someone. Make yourself someone.
This is not exactly a career and career advancement, which involves playing by someone else’s rules, without an element of self-creativity. This is precisely self-creativity, invention and production of oneself, self-realization.
Sometimes this is called the desire for freedom, without specifying what kind of freedom this is? Freedom is essentially just independence. I did something myself, thought it myself, came up with it myself, felt it myself, made a choice myself. If not absolute, then the most effective form of freedom is independent action.
It doesn’t matter that sometimes the meaning of this action is simply a break with the environment or some kind of action against the environment. Such a “punk” is not always considered independent and free, because she is reactive, not active. Dependent on the negated object. But this is still not that important. It is important that this is still your own action, conceived and carried out in isolation from the environment, and not in accordance with it.

The tendency for cognitive activity is inherent in man by nature. One of the distinctive abilities of man, which sets him apart from the animal world, is the ability to ask questions and seek answers to them. The ability to ask complex, deep questions indicates a developed intellectual personality. Thanks to cognitive activity, an individual improves, develops, and achieves desired goals. In addition to learning about the world around us, a person gets to know himself; this process begins from the first years of life.

Cognition begins with the perception of the surrounding space, into which the baby is immersed from the moment of birth in this world. The baby tastes different objects: toys, his own clothes, everything that comes to hand. Growing up, he begins to comprehend the world through thinking, comparing and contrasting different information, observations, and facts.

The need for knowledge inherent in humans can be explained by the following reasons:

1. Presence of consciousness.
2. Innate curiosity.
3. The pursuit of truth.
4. Tendency to creative activity (interrelated with cognition).
5. The desire to improve one's own life and the life of the entire society.
6. The desire to anticipate and overcome unforeseen difficulties, for example, natural disasters.

Understanding the world around us is a continuous process; it does not stop after graduating from school, university, or retirement. As long as a person is alive, he will strive to comprehend the secrets and laws of the universe, the surrounding space, and himself.

Types and ways of knowing

There are many methods and ways of obtaining knowledge about the world around us. Depending on the predominance of a person’s sensory or mental activity, two types of knowledge are distinguished: sensory and rational. Sensory cognition is based on the activity of the senses, rational cognition is based on thinking.

The following forms of cognition are also distinguished:

1. Everyday (household). A person gains knowledge based on his life experience. He observes the people around him, situations, phenomena that he encounters every day throughout his life. Based on this experience, a person forms his idea of ​​the world and society; it is not always true, and is often erroneous.

Example. Marya Ivanovna, a high school mathematics teacher, believes that all students cheat. She formed this opinion thanks to her rich life experience, having worked at school for more than 10 years. But, in reality, her conclusions are erroneous and exaggerated, because there are guys who complete all the tasks on their own.

1. Scientific knowledge. It is carried out in the process of a targeted search for objective knowledge that can be proven in theory and in practice. Methods of scientific knowledge: comparison, observation, experiment, generalization, analysis. The results of scientific knowledge are theorems, hypotheses, scientific facts, discoveries, and theories. If you open any school textbook, most of the information contained in it is the result of long-term scientific knowledge.
2. Religious knowledge- belief in divine and demonic forces: God, angels, the Devil, devils, the existence of heaven and hell. It can be based on belief in one single God, or many Gods. Religious knowledge also includes beliefs in mystical powers and the supernatural.
3. Artistic knowledge- perception of the world based on ideas about beauty. Cognition is carried out through artistic images and means of art.
4. Social Cognition - a continuous process of acquiring knowledge about society as a whole, individual social groups, and people in society.
5. Philosophical knowledge based on an interest in the search for truth, comprehension of man’s place in the surrounding world, the universe. Philosophical knowledge is discussed when the questions are asked: “Who am I,” “For what purpose was I born,” “What is the meaning of life,” “What place do I occupy in the universe,” “Why is a person born, sick, and dead?”

()

Sensory cognition

Sensory cognition is the first type of cognitive activity available to humans. It is carried out through the perception of the world based on the activity of the senses.

• With the help of vision, an individual perceives visual images, shapes, and distinguishes colors.
• Through touch, he perceives the surrounding space by touch.
• Thanks to the sense of smell, a person can distinguish more than 10,000 different odors.
• Hearing is one of the main senses in the process of cognition; with its help, not only sounds from the surrounding world are perceived, but also knowledge is disseminated.
• Special receptors located on the tongue allow a person to feel 4 basic tastes: bitter, sour, sweet, salty.

Thus, thanks to the activity of all senses, a holistic idea of ​​an object, an object, a living being, or a phenomenon is formed. Sensory cognition is available to all living beings, but has a number of disadvantages:

1. The activity of the senses is limited, especially in humans. For example, a dog has a stronger sense of smell, an eagle has vision, an elephant has hearing, and an echidna has a stronger sense of touch.
2. Often sensory knowledge excludes logic.
3. Based on the activity of the senses, the individual is drawn into emotions: beautiful images cause admiration, an unpleasant smell causes disgust, a sharp sound causes fear.

()

According to the degree of knowledge of the surrounding space, it is customary to distinguish the following types of sensory knowledge:

• 1st view - sensation. It represents a separate characteristic of an object, obtained through the activity of one of the sense organs.

Example. Nastya smelled hot bread while walking down the street; it was brought by the wind from the bakery where bread was being baked. Petya saw a shelf with oranges in the store window, but he did not have money with him to go in and buy them.

• 2nd type - perception. This is a set of sensations that creates a holistic picture, a general image of an object or phenomenon.

Example. Nastya was attracted by the delicious smell, went into the bakery and bought bread there. It was still hot, with a crispy crust, and Nastya ate half of it at once during lunch. Petya asked his mother to buy oranges at home, in the store opposite the house. They were large and bright in color, but they tasted sour and disgusting. Petya could not finish even one piece of fruit.

• 3rd view - performance. This is the memory of an object, a subject explored earlier, thanks to the activity of the senses.

Example. Feeling the familiar smell of bread, Nastya immediately wanted to have lunch; she well remembered the crispy crust of a fresh hot loaf. Petya, having attended a friend’s name day, grimaced at the sight of oranges on the table; he immediately remembered the sour taste of the recently eaten fruit.

Rational cognition

Rational knowledge is knowledge based on logical thinking. It differs from the sensory in important characteristics:

• Availability of evidence. If the result of sensory cognition are sensations obtained from one’s own experience, then the result of rational cognition are facts that can be proven using scientific methods.
• Systematic knowledge gained. Knowledge is not isolated from each other, it is interconnected into a system of concepts and theories, forming separate sciences.

Example. History is a science based on rational knowledge. All knowledge obtained with its help is systematized and complements each other.

• The presence of a conceptual apparatus. Thanks to rational knowledge, concepts and definitions are created that can be used in the future.

()

Methods of rational cognition are:

• logical method (the use of logical thinking in knowing something);
• synthesis (connection of individual parts, data into a single whole);
• observation;
• measurement;
• comparison (determining differences, similarities);

All existing sciences and teachings were created on the basis of rational knowledge.

Ways to find information

In modern times, information search has become one of the ways to understand the world around us. A wide variety of media greatly increases a person’s cognitive capabilities. Thus, cognition is carried out through:

• printed publications (newspapers, books, magazines);
• Internet;
• television;
• radio broadcasting;

Using the Internet you can very quickly and easily find almost any information, but it is not always reliable. Therefore, when choosing ways to search for information, you need to be careful and check data in different sources.

()

Example. In 2012, many articles were published on the Internet that foreshadowed the end of the world. Some talked about an asteroid falling to Earth, others about global warming and flooding of the land surface. But this could be easily verified by finding research by different scientists about upcoming natural disasters and comparing their results with each other.

Self-knowledge

From an early age, a person observes his appearance, evaluates his activities, and compares himself with others. Every year he learns something new about himself: abilities, character traits, and personality traits manifest themselves. Self-knowledge of a person is not a quick, gradual process. By recognizing one's strengths and weaknesses, a person can improve and develop.

Self-knowledge consists of several levels:

1. Self-recognition. At the age of 1-1.5 years, the child begins to recognize himself in the mirror and understand that his reflection is there.
2. Introspection. The individual observes his actions, thoughts, and actions.
3. Introspection. A person is aware of his character qualities, characteristics, evaluates them, and compares them with moral standards. He compares his actions and the results to which they led.
4. Self-esteem. A person develops a stable idea of ​​himself as an individual. Self-esteem can be objective, suspended or underestimated.

In addition, self-knowledge can be directed by a person to his own mental, creative or physical abilities. A separate type is spiritual self-knowledge, in this case a person is interested in the nature of his soul.

()

The rich inner world of man

The inner world of a person is his desires, goals, beliefs, worldview, ideas about himself and other people, values. You can notice your appearance immediately and appreciate its attractiveness, but with the inner world things are more complicated. At first glance it is invisible, but over time it manifests itself in a person’s communication and actions.

It often happens that an outwardly unattractive person still evokes sympathy due to his inner qualities. Conversely, a beautiful person quickly causes disappointment if he behaves stupidly, impudently, and selfishly. So the inner world and appearance, actions - form a single whole, making up a general idea of ​​\u200b\u200ba person.

Bertrand Russell

Human knowledge of its scope and boundaries

Preface

This work is addressed not only and not primarily to professional philosophers, but also to that wider circle of readers who are interested in philosophical issues and want or have the opportunity to devote very limited time to discussing them. Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley and Hume wrote precisely for such a reader, and I consider it a sad misunderstanding that during the last hundred and sixty years or so philosophy has been considered as a special science like mathematics. It must be admitted that logic is as specialized as mathematics, but I believe that logic is not a part of philosophy. Philosophy proper deals with subjects of interest to the general educated public, and loses a great deal if only a small circle of professionals are able to understand what it says.

In this book I have tried to discuss, as widely as I could, a very large and important question: how is it that people whose contacts with the world are short-lived, personal and limited, are nevertheless able to know as much as they actually know? Is faith in our knowledge partly illusory? And if not, what can we know otherwise than through the senses? Although I have touched on some aspects of this problem in my other books, I was nevertheless forced to return here, in a broader context, to a discussion of some issues previously considered; and I have kept such repetition to a minimum consistent with my purpose.

One of the difficulties of the question I am considering here is the fact that we are forced to use words common to everyday speech, such as "belief", "truth", "knowledge" and "perception". Since these words in their ordinary use are insufficiently definite and imprecise, and since there are no more precise words to replace them, it is inevitable that everything said in the early stage of our research will be unsatisfactory from the point of view which we hope to achieve at the end. The development of our knowledge, if it is successful, is similar to the approach of a traveler to a mountain through the fog: at first he distinguishes only large features, even if they have not fully defined contours, but gradually he sees more and more details, and the outlines become sharper. Likewise, in our research it is impossible to first clarify one problem and then move on to another, because the fog covers everything equally. At each stage, although only one part of the problem may be the focus, all parts are more or less relevant. All the different keywords we must use are interconnected, and as some of them remain undefined, others must also share their deficiency to a greater or lesser extent. It follows that what was said at first must be corrected later. The Prophet said that if two texts of the Quran are found to be incompatible, the latter should be considered as the most authoritative. I would like the reader to apply a similar principle in interpreting what is said in this book.

The book was read in manuscript by my friend and student, Mr. S. C. Hill, and I am indebted to him for many valuable comments, suggestions, and corrections. Much of the manuscript was also read by Mr. Hiram J. McLendon, who made many helpful suggestions.

The fourth chapter of the third part - “Physics and Experience” - is a reprint with minor changes of my small book, published under the same title by Cambridge University Press, to which I am grateful for permission to reprint.

Bertrand Russell

INTRODUCTION

The main purpose of this book is to explore the relationship between individual experience and the general composition of scientific knowledge. It is generally taken for granted that scientific knowledge in its broad outlines should be accepted. Skepticism in relation to it, although logically and irreproachably, is psychologically impossible, and in any philosophy that pretends to such skepticism there is always an element of frivolous insincerity. Moreover, if skepticism wants to defend itself theoretically, it must reject all inferences from what is obtained by experience; partial skepticism, such as the denial of non-experienced physical phenomena, or solipsism, which admits events only in my future or in my past, which I do not remember, has no logical justification, since it must admit principles of inference leading to beliefs which he rejects.

Since the time of Kant, or perhaps more correctly since the time of Berkeley, there has been a mistaken tendency among philosophers to admit descriptions of the world that are unduly influenced by considerations drawn from an inquiry into the nature of human knowledge. It is clear to scientific common sense (which I accept) that only an infinitesimal part of the universe is known, that countless centuries have passed during which there has been no knowledge at all, and that perhaps countless centuries will again come during which there will be no knowledge. From the cosmic and causal point of view, knowledge is an inessential feature of the universe; a science that forgot to mention its presence would suffer, from an impersonal point of view, a very trivial imperfection. In describing the world, subjectivity is a vice. Kant said of himself that he had made a “Copernican revolution,” but he would have been more precise if he had spoken of a “Ptolemaic counter-revolution,” since he put man back at the center, while Copernicus had deposed him.

But when we ask not about “what is the world in which we live”, but about “how we come to know the world,” subjectivity turns out to be completely legitimate. Each person's knowledge depends mainly on his own individual experience: he knows what he has seen and heard, what he has read and what has been reported to him, as well as what he has been able to conclude from these data. The question is about individual, and not about collective experience, since in order to move from my data to the acceptance of any verbal evidence, a conclusion is required. If I believe that there is, for example, a populated area like Semipalatinsk, then I believe in it because something gives me a reason for this; and if I had not accepted certain fundamental principles of inference, I would have to admit that all this could have happened to me without the actual existence of this place.

The desire to avoid subjectivity in describing the world (which I share) leads - at least it seems to me - some modern philosophers down the wrong path regarding the theory of knowledge. Having lost their taste for its problems, they tried to deny the existence of these problems themselves. Since the time of Protagoras, the thesis has been known that the data of experience are personal and private. This thesis was denied because it was believed, as Protagoras himself believed, that if accepted, it would necessarily lead to the conclusion that all knowledge is private and individual. As for me, I accept the thesis, but deny the conclusion; how and why - this should be shown on subsequent pages.

As a result of certain events in my own life, I have certain beliefs about events that I myself have not experienced: the thoughts and feelings of other people, the physical objects around me, the historical and geological past of the earth, and the distant regions of the universe that astronomy studies. For my part, I accept these beliefs as valid, except for errors in detail. Accepting all this, I am forced to come to the view that there are correct processes of inference from some events and phenomena to others - more specifically, from events and phenomena of which I know without the help of inference, to others of which I have no such knowledge. The discovery of these processes is a matter of analyzing the process of scientific and everyday thinking, since such a process is usually considered scientifically correct.

Inference from a group of phenomena to other phenomena can only be justified if the world has certain features that are not logically necessary. As far as deductive logic can show it, any collection of events may be the whole universe; if in such a case I draw any conclusions about events, I must accept principles of inference that lie outside deductive logic. Any conclusion from phenomenon to phenomenon presupposes some kind of relationship between various phenomena. Such a relationship is traditionally affirmed in the principle of causality or natural law. This principle is presupposed, as we shall see, in induction by mere enumeration, whatever limited meaning we may ascribe to it. But the traditional ways of formulating the kind of relationship that must be postulated are largely defective - some are too strict and rigid, while others lack it. Establishing the minimum principles necessary to justify scientific conclusions is one of the main purposes of this book.

Briefly and clearly about philosophy: the main and most important thing about philosophy and philosophers
Basic approaches to the problem of cognition

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, the ways, sources and methods of knowledge, as well as the relationship between knowledge and reality.

There are two main approaches to the problem of cognition.

1. Epistemological optimism, whose supporters recognize that the world is knowable regardless of whether we can currently explain some phenomena or not.

This position is adhered to by all materialists and some consistent idealists, although their methods of cognition are different.

The basis of cognition is the ability of consciousness to reproduce (reflect) to a certain degree of completeness and accuracy an object existing outside it.

The main premises of the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism are the following:

1) the source of our knowledge is outside of us, it is objective in relation to us;

2) there is no fundamental difference between “phenomenon” and “thing in itself”, but there is a difference between what is known and what is not yet known;

3) cognition is a continuous process of deepening and even changing our knowledge based on the transformation of reality.

2. Epistemological pessimism. Its essence is doubt in the possibility of knowability of the world.

Types of epistemological pessimism:

1) skepticism - a direction that questions the possibility of knowing objective reality (Diogenes, Sextus Empiricus). Philosophical skepticism turns doubt into a principle of knowledge (David Hume);

2) agnosticism - a movement that denies the possibility of reliable knowledge of the essence of the world (I. Kant). The source of knowledge is the external world, the essence of which is unknowable. Any object is a “thing in itself”. We cognize only phenomena with the help of innate a priori forms (space, time, categories of reason), and we organize our experience of sensation.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, a type of agnosticism was formed - conventionalism. This is the concept that scientific theories and concepts are not a reflection of the objective world, but the product of agreement between scientists.

Human cognition

Cognition is the interaction of a subject and an object with the active role of the subject itself, resulting in some kind of knowledge.

The subject of cognition can be an individual, a collective, a class, or society as a whole.

The object of knowledge can be the entire objective reality, and the subject of cognition can be only its part or area directly included in the process of cognition itself.

Cognition is a specific type of human spiritual activity, the process of comprehending the surrounding world. It develops and improves in close connection with social practice.

Cognition is a movement, a transition from ignorance to knowledge, from less knowledge to more knowledge.

In cognitive activity, the concept of truth is central. Truth is the correspondence of our thoughts to objective reality. A lie is a discrepancy between our thoughts and reality. Establishing the truth is the act of transition from ignorance to knowledge, in a particular case - from misconception to knowledge. Knowledge is a thought that corresponds to objective reality and adequately reflects it. A misconception is an idea that does not correspond to reality, a false idea. This is ignorance, presented, accepted as knowledge; a false idea presented or accepted as true.

A socially significant process of cognition is formed from millions of cognitive efforts of individuals. The process of transforming individual knowledge into universally significant knowledge, recognized by society as the cultural heritage of humanity, is subject to complex sociocultural patterns. The integration of individual knowledge into the commonwealth is carried out through communication between people, critical assimilation and recognition of this knowledge by society. The transfer and transmission of knowledge from generation to generation and the exchange of knowledge between contemporaries are possible thanks to the materialization of subjective images and their expression in language. Thus, cognition is a socio-historical, cumulative process of obtaining and improving knowledge about the world in which a person lives.

Structure and forms of knowledge

The general direction of the process of cognition is expressed in the formula: “From living contemplation to abstract thinking and from it to practice.”

In the process of cognition, stages are distinguished.

1. Sensory cognition is based on sensory sensations that reflect reality. Through feelings a person contacts the outside world. The main forms of sensory cognition include: sensation, perception and representation. Sensation is an elementary subjective image of objective reality. A specific feature of sensations is their homogeneity. Any sensation provides information only about one qualitative aspect of an object.

A person is able to significantly develop the subtlety and acuity of feelings and sensations.

Perception is a holistic reflection, an image of objects and events in the surrounding world.

An idea is a sensory recollection of an object that does not currently affect a person, but once acted on his senses. Because of this, the image of an object in the imagination, on the one hand, is of a poorer character than in sensations and perceptions, and on the other hand, the purposeful nature of human cognition is more strongly manifested in it.

2. Rational knowledge is based on logical thinking, which is carried out in three forms: concepts, judgments, and inferences.

A concept is an elementary form of thought in which objects are reflected in their general and essential properties and features. Concepts are objective in content and source. Specific abstract concepts are identified that differ in degrees of generality.

Judgments reflect connections and relationships between things and their properties and operate with concepts; judgments deny or affirm something.

Inference is a process as a result of which a new judgment is obtained from several judgments with logical necessity.

3. Intuitive knowledge is based on the fact that a sudden decision, the truth, independently comes to a person on an unconscious level, without preliminary logical proof.

Features of everyday and scientific knowledge

Knowledge differs in its depth, level of professionalism, use of sources and means. Everyday and scientific knowledge are distinguished. The former are not the result of professional activity and, in principle, are inherent to one degree or another in any individual. The second type of knowledge arises as a result of deeply specialized activities that require professional training, called scientific knowledge.

Cognition also differs in its subject matter. Knowledge of nature leads to the development of physics, chemistry, geology, etc., which together constitute natural science. Knowledge of man and society determines the formation of humanitarian and social disciplines. There is also artistic and religious knowledge.

Scientific knowledge as a professional type of social activity is carried out according to certain scientific canons accepted by the scientific community. It uses special research methods and also evaluates the quality of the knowledge obtained based on accepted scientific criteria. The process of scientific knowledge includes a number of mutually organized elements: object, subject, knowledge as a result and research method.

The subject of knowledge is the one who realizes it, that is, a creative person who forms new knowledge. The object of knowledge is a fragment of reality that is the focus of the researcher’s attention. The object is mediated by the subject of cognition. If the object of science can exist independently of the cognitive goals and consciousness of the scientist, then this cannot be said about the object of knowledge. The subject of knowledge is a certain vision and understanding of the object of study from a certain point of view, in a given theoretical-cognitive perspective.

The cognizing subject is not a passive contemplative being, mechanically reflecting nature, but an active, creative personality. In order to get an answer to the questions posed by scientists about the essence of the object being studied, the cognizing subject has to influence nature and invent complex research methods.

Philosophy of scientific knowledge

The theory of scientific knowledge (epistemology) is one of the areas of philosophical knowledge.

Science is a field of human activity, the essence of which is to obtain knowledge about natural and social phenomena, as well as about man himself.

The driving forces of scientific knowledge are:

1) practical need for knowledge. Most sciences grew out of these needs, although some of them, especially in such areas as mathematics, theoretical physics, cosmology, were born not under the direct influence of practical need, but from the internal logic of the development of knowledge, from contradictions in this knowledge itself;

2) curiosity of scientists. The task of a scientist is to ask nature questions through experiments and get answers to them. An incurious scientist is not a scientist;

3) the intellectual pleasure that a person experiences when discovering something that no one knew before (in the educational process, intellectual pleasure is also present as the student discovering new knowledge “for himself”).

The means of scientific knowledge are:

1) the mind, logical thinking of a scientist, his intellectual and heuristic (creative) abilities;

2) sense organs, in unity with the data of which mental activity is carried out;

3) instruments (appeared since the 17th century), which provide more accurate information about the properties of things.

A device is like one or another organ of the human body that has gone beyond its natural boundaries. The human body distinguishes degrees of temperature, mass, illumination, current, etc., but thermometers, scales, galvanometers, etc. do this much more accurately. With the invention of instruments, human cognitive capabilities have expanded incredibly; Research became available not only at the level of short-range action, but also long-range action (phenomena in the microcosm, astrophysical processes in space). Science begins with measurement. Therefore, the scientist’s motto is: “Measure what can be measured, and find a way to measure what cannot yet be measured.”

Practice and its functions in the process of cognition

Practice and knowledge are closely related to each other: practice has a cognitive side, knowledge has a practical side. As a source of knowledge, practice provides initial information that is generalized and processed by thinking. Theory, in turn, is a generalization of practice. In practice and through practice, the subject learns the laws of reality; without practice there is no knowledge of the essence of objects.

Practice is also the driving force of knowledge. Impulses emanate from it, largely determining the emergence of a new meaning and its transformation.

Practice determines the transition from the sensory reflection of objects to their rational reflection, from one research method to another, from one thinking to another, from empirical thinking to theoretical thinking.

The purpose of knowledge is to achieve true meaning.

Practice is a specific method of development in which the result of an activity is adequate to its purpose.

Practice is a set of all types of socially significant, transformative activities of people, the basis of which is production activity. This is the form in which the interaction of object and subject, society and nature is realized.

The importance of practice for the cognitive process, for the development and development of scientific and other forms of knowledge has been emphasized by many philosophers of different directions.

The main functions of practice in the process of cognition:

1) practice is a source of knowledge because all knowledge is caused in life mainly by its needs;

2) practice acts as the basis of knowledge, its driving force. It permeates all aspects, moments of knowledge from its beginning to its end;

3) practice is directly the goal of knowledge, for it exists not for the sake of simple curiosity, but in order to direct them to correspond to images, to one degree or another regulate the activities of people;

4) practice is the decisive criterion, that is, it allows one to separate true knowledge from misconceptions.
.....................................

In the previous chapter we talked about some differences between animals and people, which clearly show the qualitative and species differences between the two. However, we have not yet touched upon the main distinguishing feature of a person - his unique way of cognition and a unique way of self-determination. We must study them not only in order to better understand the difference between man and animals, but, above all, in order to better understand man himself: after all, comprehension of reality is the achievement of truth, and the ability to self-determinate for good is freedom. Both constitute the highest prerogative of man. Therefore, we will devote this chapter to a consideration of human knowledge in all its diversity, and the next to the study of the human ability of volition. We then have to wonder about the ultimate conditions of possibility or intelligibility of these human realities. As always, we will try to adhere to the data obtained by experience or provided by reality itself, and then turn to reflection in search of an explanation of the latest structures of human existence. For we are not only engaged in phenomenology, much less behaviorism.

1. Question about abilities

Empirical psychology does not ask about human abilities as such. It is content with observing and classifying empirical data and prefers to talk about functions rather than abilities, because the concept of ability is rather metaphysical. But in a book on the philosophy of man one cannot avoid the question of what are the abilities or possibilities of a person that allow him to carry out acts of recollection, sensory, intellectual or rational knowledge, as well as acts of will. After all, as long as a person implements them, it means he has the ability to do so. We must ask ourselves: what is this ability or abilities?

Following the scholastics, we can understand ability as immediate start of action. Without entering into important, but too detailed discussions about abilities (we do not have the opportunity for this), we will confine ourselves to the statement that the human person is indeed endowed with the ability to perform various kinds of actions, be it acts of representation or cognition of some object (the ability to see, hear, remember, understand, reason) or acts of striving aimed at approaching an object or avoiding it (desire, pleasure, irritability, fear, etc.). In other words, we can talk about the activities of the senses (or the data of sensory experience), the actions of thinking (simple comprehension, judgments), rational actions (correlative judgment, deduction, induction), volitional actions (decision making, orders, love, friendship, sacrificing oneself for the sake of others, hatred, etc.). So, there is no doubt that in a person there are (no matter how you interpret them) abilities or potencies through which he realizes the acts of his life.

St. Thomas clarifies the nature of human potential: potency as such is subordinate to the act; it has no reality if it is not connected with the act to which it is subject. For its part, the act correlates with its formal object and receives a specific definition from it. Every act is either an act of passive ability or an act of active ability. If it is an act of passive ability, then the formal object acts as its beginning and efficient cause. So color, being the cause of vision, acts as the objective principle of vision. If the act is an act of active ability, then the formal object acts as its completion and target cause, for example, the desire for wealth 1.

The controversial question is this: how are abilities and their subject, a person, related to each other? In other words, is there a real difference between human abilities from each other and from the subject himself? St. Thomas distinguishes between spiritual faculties or potencies, such as the faculties of understanding and desire, the action of which is exercised without the aid of the bodily organs, and the subject is only the soul, and those faculties which, being rooted in the soul, are exercised through the mediation of the bodily organs: e.g. seeing is through the eyes and hearing is through the ears. In such abilities, the soul acts only as a beginning, but not as an integral subject. The subject will be a body animated by a form, that is, a soul 2.

As for the difference between abilities, the scholastics adhere to the following point of view: since their acts are different, then they themselves must really differ from each other. And since they are different from each other, then they are also different from the essence of the human “I”. Abilities are diverse and different accidents of one and the same substance. They do not have existence in themselves, but receive existence from the substance of either the soul or the combination of soul and body. They represent entia entis(being in being), although in everyday language we substantive them and talk about memory, understanding, volition, etc. 3

Without going into these subtle and controversial distances, we consider it more important to pay attention to the statement of the same St. Thomas: “Non enim proprie loquendo sensus aut intellectus cognoscit sed homo per untrumque” (“Actually speaking, it is not sensation or intellect that knows, but man through the medium of both”) 4. And in another place St. Thomas categorically states: “Manifestum est enim quod hic homo singularis intelligit” (“It is obvious that this man is the only one who understands”) 5. This already foreshadows that unitary vision of man, which today serves as one of the foundations of philosophical anthropology. As has already been said, in the strict sense it is not the eyes that see, the ears do not hear, the memory does not remember, the understanding does not understand, and the intellect does not reason. The whole person sees, hears, remembers, understands and reasons. Actiones sunt suppositorum, the scholastics already said: actions belong to the “supposite”. This term denoted a holistic and incommunicable individual substance. Actions belong to the person as a whole, and this is quite applicable to conscious sensations and to intellectual, rational and volitional acts. Strictly speaking, we do not have understanding, reason or will as different entities. For what are understanding, reason, or will, if not different acts of one and the same person? Therefore, when Kant implements criticism of pure reason, he criticizes a non-existent thing. There is no pure mind, there is a person - an integral individual substance capable of rational thinking. Yes, we make divisions in order to understand better, and we use the terms “memory”, “understanding”, “reason” or “will” because they are convenient for interpretation. But we must realize that we are not talking about different entities as such, but about different modes of expression and action belonging to a single and integral being, which is called the human person. Subiri reminds us that human actions are “the actualization of my possibilities and my abilities. It is necessary to insist that every action belongs to the integral substantial system that each person represents. There are no acts of pure sensation, pure thinking, pure desire, etc. Every action, I repeat, is performed by an integral system with all its characteristics. And the whole point is that in this current system one or more characteristics can drown out others in various ways” 6.

2. General concepts related to human cognition

It is more than obvious that man is an open being, oriented towards his environment in the broadest sense. Our human experience tells us that we are surrounded by the reality we know, other people and an infinite number of things with which we are connected and among which we lead our difficult existence. This experience is given to us directly. We realize ourselves in the constant interchange between the internal and the external (known and used), and in this interchange, which Heidegger calls “care” ( Sorge), we acquire and build our own personal world. If we want to explain the phenomenon of man, we cannot close our eyes to this fact of man’s openness and communication with other people and with the environment as a whole, an environment that can be defined as the totality of our living space and our cognitive horizon. This apparent reality presupposes that we experience others, the world, and ourselves as real objects. If this were not so, it would be impossible to explain human behavior and the cooperation of all people in achieving common goals or solving various kinds of problems.

It is difficult to define what human cognition is. It represents a primary and undeniable, but very complex experience, because a person is characterized by many and varied methods and levels of cognition: sensation, perception, recall, judgment, abstract concept, analogy, deduction, etc., which cannot be subsumed under one universally suitable definition. But descriptively we can characterize an act of cognition as any act in which reality intentionally, directly or indirectly, appears to us in its existence or possibility of existence and in its actual nature.

The most general signs of any human cognition are:

1) Vitality of action .

This means that knowledge does not simply reflect reality like a mirror passively reflecting an object placed in front of it, as Descartes thought. Cognition is the vital and original response of our cognitive faculties, which react to reality and intentionally master it. This means that cognition is essentially an immanent activity. This fact gives rise to many difficulties in explaining the causal impact of external sensory reality on mental abilities.

2) There is knowledge connection between the cognizing subject and the cognizable object .

One does not exist without the other. Inspired by Brentano, Husserl insisted that every experience of consciousness, and especially cognitive experience, is intentionally directed towards some object. The object is not consciousness, but the essential correlate of consciousness 7 . And indeed it is. The difference between animal cognition and human cognition is that man is reflectively aware of an object as a reality distinct from the I-subject, even when the cognized object is immanent to the subject. The object is intentionally given to the subject as something different from him. Kant and other idealists believed that the subject "constitutes" the object: the latter has no significance of reality in itself, but exists only as an "object" of knowledge, constituted by sense data and subjective information, and not by reality as such. The falsity of the idealistic postulate becomes obvious from the undeniable presence of the real in our thinking. A presence that allows the formulation of scientific knowledge about natural, human and metaphysical realities, and not subjective ideas. Proof of this is the fact that these sciences give us the opportunity to explain reality and dominate it. Moreover, we are talking not only about sensory, but also about intelligible reality: human rights or such definitions of reality as law, right, justice, society, state, etc., as well as all the general concepts that form the foundation of the sciences. To assert that we know only phenomena and that reality itself is an unknown quantity, x, means falling into a dogmatic dream 8.

3) There is knowledge intentional unity .

St. Thomas explains it this way: “For knowledge it is necessary that there be some likeness of the thing known in the knower, some form of it.” Therefore, there must also be “some correspondence between the subject and the cognitive ability” 9 . This unity is of such a nature that in the act of cognition, the knower and the known form a mysterious union, in which, however, the distinction between subject and object is always preserved 10.

It is obvious that in such a symbiosis of subject and object, the object of cognition may experience some changes, especially since, as we said, our cognition is not passive and contemplative, but vital and active. The scholastics expressed this in the following formula: Cognitum est in cognoscente ad modum cognoscentis(the knowable resides in the knower according to the mode of the knower). This does not mean relativism, as if what is known depends entirely on the knowing subject. This only means that, even while we know the real as real, we can, in our intentional approach to it, change some of its features, or, while we know some aspects of reality, we can and do remain ignorant of other aspects of it. It is always possible to obtain new data about an already known reality. This is why a person must maintain a constant openness to reality so that it can guide and enrich him: because in fact, knowledge is nothing more than the openness of reality to human knowledge. A person is the more normal, balanced and wise the more he allows reality to guide him. Those who lose their sense of reality in one or many respects are psychopaths or neurotics.

Cognition plays such an important role in human life that, to a large extent, it and its peculiar characteristics constitute the individual as a person. This is precisely what Aristotle and the scholastics meant when they called man a “rational living being,” despite the already noted insufficiency of such a definition. Cognition turns us into conscious subjects, capable of communicating with the world of things and people, and therefore capable of moving forward. It opens us up to an indefinite wealth of possibilities, for it is inconceivable that something unthinkable could exist. Moreover, the intentional possession of an object drives us to search for another or other objects. Human curiosity constitutes the force of attraction that makes us always strive for more knowledge, and with it for more being and for being more. Often this gravitational force of knowledge confronts us with a problem, that is, with a question for which we do not know the answer or do not know which of the proposed answers is true. You need to listen to reality, because truth is reality. Reality serves as a reliable guide to all true knowledge.

However, with all the obviousness of the fact that we cognize reality, this fact itself throughout history has turned into a problem, or rather, into a mystery: after all, man as suppositum cognoscens(cognizing independent substance) is completely involved in reality. Already medieval philosophers, starting from the 12th century, debated the cognitive value of general concepts. In the 14th century, William of Ockham resumes this debate and leans toward nominalism. In the 17th century, Descartes unwittingly raised the suspicion that all our knowledge rests on a subjective statement. Hence the English empiricists of the 17th-18th centuries. derive the so-called “principle of immanence”: it states that we know our ideas (ideas), but we do not know whether they correspond to reality or not. Based on this principle, Kant develops his transcendental idealism, Fichte - subjective idealism, Schelling - objective idealism, Hegel - absolute idealism, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche develop the doctrine of the negation of all truth in general. Husserl will make an attempt to return to the things themselves, but only as phenomena and ideal entities. Wittgenstein will advise not to talk about meta-empirical knowledge (because “about what cannot be spoken about, it is better to remain silent”) 11 and engage only in the analysis of language. Radical existentialists fall into extreme subjectivism, because man is just an existential formation, devoid of objective truths (Sartre), and postmodernists challenge “weak thinking” (G. Vattimo), which strives to cognize only incoherent fragments of reality devoid of definite meaning. All this suggests that a significant part of the philosophy of the New Age and the current era for centuries cared very little about knowledge and only with manic persistence sought to know whether we know. But fruitless circling around one's own ideas and doubts about all reality is a symptom of a deep mental disorder.

Other aspects and dimensions of human action are studied in special works on the theory of knowledge. Here we are forced to limit ourselves to the most basic information.

3. Sensory cognition

One of the vital constants present in every human personality is what we call sensory knowledge, or sensation. The term “sensation” had and continues to have such a wide and varied meaning in the Aristotelian tradition that this does not allow us to give it a precise definition. Following Shashkevich, who relies on modern scientific psychology, we can understand by sensation in a broad sense the presence in human consciousness of special sensory qualities, such as color, sound, smell, dizziness, muscle tension, etc. 12 What we call “ world” - more precisely, “our world” - at the first moment is present for us in sensory experience, both external and internal. Schelling, Hegel, and Husserl use the term “experience” in an even broader sense, including “experience of the spirit,” but we prefer to use it only in relation to sensory experience.

More specifically, we can say that sensations are changes in a bodily organ under the direct influence of a stimulus, which produce in consciousness direct and immediate knowledge of material and actually present reality. It should be noted that this definition cannot be unambiguously attributed to irrational animals: after all, strictly speaking, in a person not only sense organs sense, but suppositum cognoscens, the whole subject, and the animal subject is absolutely different from the human subject. An adult rarely experiences pure sensations; usually he has what is called perceptions .

Perception differs from sensation in that it is a complex complex of fused sensations. We grasp not isolated sensations, but integral structures of objects, beings and events - unities of a higher order, more complex and endowed with meaning. Perceptions have (as is now commonly said) a “form”, Gestalt. This means that the formation of perception involves not only stimuli and sensations perceived by the senses and the central nervous system, but also (crucially!) a higher-order factor. This factor is a “form” that integrates the spatial and temporal disparity of individual sensations into holistic perceptions. Thus, perceptions are by no means simple associations of isolated sensations - contrary to the belief of many psychologists of the last century, followers of Hume. The research of Max Wertheimer (1880_1943), Kurt Koffka (1887_1967) and Wolfgang Köhler (1887_1967), the founders of Gestalt psychology, showed the existence of a structure that formally unites neurophysiological processes called sensations into a higher-order unity. When we see a car, we see not just neutral qualities - color or length - but we “see” the car. In other words, we have a sensation in which various sensations, memories and preliminary concepts (speed, noise, convenience, control, utility, elegance, etc.) are somehow combined. When we see a talking person on TV, we see not just a human image, but a handsome TV presenter who tells us interesting news from around the world every day. When we listen to music in a concert hall, we hear not just a set of sounds, but Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, experiencing all the emotions that it is capable of awakening in us. These are not pure sensations, but complex perceptions of reality. The condensation of sensations in forms is determined by mental factors - central or structural: they unite sensations and may also depend on the subjectivity of each person. It is not easy to define more subtly the nature of this form ( Gestalt). Its study is rather the subject of empirical psychology. Lersch puts forward a hypothesis according to which “spontaneous mental activity, connecting sensations into formalized perceptions, is revealed in the search that is carried out in instincts and drives” 13. This clears things up a bit. In any case, it can be argued that perception is an empirical act of representation, since it represents the situation as a whole in its relation to our organism and its abilities to act. Perception is something different in appearance from sensation, because it organizes sensory data, complements them, corrects them, or, if necessary, eliminates them in the name of the whole 14.

Animals, as studies have shown Von bxkll"a, perceive as significant only those complexes of stimuli that are relevant for their self-preservation and reproduction, that is, they correspond to their basic instincts. But in fact, animals also have some perceptions, they also organize sensory qualities into a meaningful unity. It manifests itself, as a rule, in instinctive behavior when meeting a typical perceptual complex: for example, in the amazing ability of some animals to navigate in space (storks, swallows), in their reactions to perceptual images in perceptual illusions, etc. 15

When we talk about human perceptions as specifically human, it is necessary to take into account the presence of reason. As H. Subiri has shown, there is no genuine gap between sensibility and thinking, which has been asserted since the time of Plato and which Descartes again defended. Human thinking is feeling thinking, and human sensuality is thinking sensuality. This means that man, being a single being, a single cognizing subject, at the first moment encounters reality as “other.” But if an animal grasps “otherness” only as a stimulus (heat prompts it to approach or run), then the human feeling of “otherness” is not just a response sign: a person feels not only that warmth warms, but in the same sensation perceives heat as something existing, like reality. The content of a sensation is not limited to the fact that it affects a person, but is something “in itself,” whether it affects a person or not. The animal senses the stimulus; a person perceives the stimulus as reality. And this act of comprehending reality as such is a property of thinking, which acts in a person hand in hand with sensation. In a single act the stimulus is experienced and reality is perceived. This is what we called thinking sensation or (which is the same thing) feeling thinking. Here lies the essential difference between sensation in animals and in humans. It is not the object of thought and sensibility, but their formal structure that is the reason that they constitute a single and unique faculty precisely as a faculty. This view seems correct to us 16.

If we now move on to the classification of human feelings, we find ourselves in a difficult situation. The scholastic division into external and internal feelings is traditional. External ones include vision, hearing, taste, smell and touch. Already St. Thomas noted that the sense of touch is a generic concept, divided into many types 17. The scholastics considered the internal feelings to be the general feeling that receives and classifies the material of external sensations; imagination, appreciative or thinking ability and memory. All these senses are called external or internal, not because they perceive external things, and these - internal, and not because the organs of external senses are external, and the organs of internal senses are inside the body. The difference is rather due to the fact that the external senses are always set in motion directly by an external stimulus of a physical, chemical or mechanical nature, while the internal senses come into action after receiving an impulse from the external senses. External senses tend to transform physical energy into physiological and mental energy and directly generate an intentional object. On the contrary, internal feelings tend to process and improve the already transformed energy at the next step 18.

There is no consensus among modern psychologists, especially regarding what we have called internal feelings. In general, they consider sensations to be static sensations that provide us with information about the position of our body in space and relative to the force of gravity; further, kinesthetic sensations that inform us about the position of our members, their movements and the tension or pressure they experience; and uterine, organic sensations that carry a message about the state of various parts of our body, and especially about unfavorable changes in the state of internal organs, for example, fatigue, pain, hunger, thirst, etc. Within these sensations, the feeling of general well-being or ill-being of the body is particularly emphasized and souls. Finally, sensations include the sensation of time passing 19.

Other authors distinguish between dermal and intraorganic touch in the sense of touch. The cutaneous includes sensations of pressure, cold, heat, pain, and the intraorganic includes sensations of movement, balance, organic feeling 20. Some distinguish between the lower senses (skin organs of touch, kinesthetic sense, smell and taste) and higher senses (hearing, vision). The basis for the distinction is the fact that in the last two senses the object does not need direct contact with the organ, and the sensations are caused unconsciously 21. Subiri speaks of eleven senses, each of which has its own way of comprehending reality 22.

As we see, there is no unanimity in the classification, because there are many sensations, and the perceptions that we experience depend on many objective and subjective factors and are intertwined. So it is not easy to isolate sensations in their pure form, and this gives rise to a multiplicity of interpretations. But for our purposes this doesn't matter much.

At the end of this section, we present the classical division of objects of sensation into the actual sensory ones ( per se) and improperly sensual ( per accidens). Properly sensory is that which in itself sets the sense organ in motion and is comprehended due to its effect on the cognitive ability. From an epistemological point of view, only qualities, color, sound, etc. are known as strictly sensory. This is very imperfect knowledge. The sensory itself can be such either individually, in itself ( per se proprium) - in the case when a single feeling represents a single quality, either on its own and directly (sound, color), or as simultaneously associated ( per se commune) - in the case when it can be comprehended not by one sense, but by several. Following Aristotle, St. Thomas names five sensations per se communes: movement, rest, number, shape and extension 23. Improperly sensual, or sensual per accides, there is an object that in itself does not activate the sense organ, but, based on the fact of sensation, imagination, recollection or understanding, complements the information that leads us to knowledge of the object, although real, but necessarily mediated. For example, I can see a person and say: this is the king. But his royal dignity was not given to me in sensations. This is what we previously called perception 24.

The above divisions go back to Aristotle and the scholastics, but today they can be accepted in a general form. After all, experimental psychologists themselves (primarily under the influence of the school of Gestalt psychology) recognize the totalizing vital unity of sensitive functions.

It is obvious that sensory realities have a genuine causal influence on the senses. There is an almost infinite number of stimuli that, acting on various organs, cause certain sensations. Stimuli are, as a rule, material objects or physical, chemical and biological phenomena. They all belong to the material reality surrounding the organism, or to the organism itself. How a material stimulus, such as light waves, can give rise to a higher order consequence, that is, an intentional representation, is a very complex and unclear problem. It again refers us to the fact that sensations are acts of the entire subject. The subject is a psychic being if he is an animal; if we are talking about a human subject, then he has a much richer and more meaningful mental activity, as we will see when talking about the human soul. All acts of experience are acts of a single “psychological Self,” which has the property of transforming the material into the psychological. But the act of human experience is very different from the empirical act. Empiricists cripple perception and human psychism, reducing it to pure sensuality. But in the act itself human experience overcomes the empiricism and associativism of Hume and the neopositivists, because human perception is something much more than sensation.

So, to summarize, let's say the following: sensation serves as the initial method of human cognition. But it is already very different from the sensations of animals, because in sensations a person grasps reality precisely as reality, and not as a stimulus. Further, human sensations can be classified in various ways. But in reality, what is important for us is not pure sensations, but perceptions: they are the moments of true knowledge of sensory things. Finally, material stimuli have a genuine causal effect on the senses, and from here psychic knowledge of sensory objects is born, which can then be raised to the level of thinking.

4. Imagination and memory

In the old treatises on the faculties of the human soul, the so-called internal sensibility was divided, as we have already said, into four faculties: general feeling, imagination, appraising or thinking ability and memory 25. In modern works on philosophical and empirical psychology, only two abilities remain from them: imagination and memory; ideas about general feeling and evaluative ability have fallen out of use since the 17th century. Naturally, those functions that were attributed to these abilities continue to be studied, but mainly in sections devoted to perception. What was previously called “general sense” is today called “primary organization of perception”, or “sensory synthesis”. As for the evaluative ability, in our time it is called the “secondary organization of perception.”

Without going into details, which are not of great importance in this case, it is necessary, however, to say a few words about what imagination and memory are. This necessity is explained by their decisive influence on the development of the human personality and human life in general. Imagination can be defined as an internal sensory ability that represents as intentionally present some phenomenon that is not physically given to a person. But we must focus attention not so much on the ability, but on its acts, for they are numerous, diverse and determine the ability itself in terms of species. Different authors divide acts of imagination in different ways. There are images originating from all areas of sensuality: visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, kinesthetic, etc. Acts of imagination can be arbitrary, that is, voluntarily and freely caused (for example, we can freely imagine the Cologne Cathedral or the banks of the Seine, where we once visited, or enjoy imagining that we again hear the music of “Aida”). But they may also be passive(for example, when we see a person, we involuntarily, by association, have an image of his house). We do not have absolute power over the imagination. Unconscious associations, biological, social, cultural and other motives can cause us to often and completely unwittingly become victims of imaginary images that arise in us.

The looks we're talking about are almost always worn reproductive character, that is, they re-produce what has already been experienced before. But a person can, at his whim create all kinds of images, connecting, continuing or varying experienced phenomena. Such creative ability can be free or involuntary. I may have new melancholic, melancholy, sensual images, fantasies about travel, about certain situations, etc. And all of them can suddenly and unexpectedly appear to my consciousness.

The act of imagination has the features of an act of perception: it is a conscious, intentional and presentational act, and not aspirational. However, the act of imagination does not necessarily obey actual stimuli, and therefore imaginary ideas, as a rule (with the exception of anomalous hallucinations), are less vivid and distinct than direct sensations or perceptions. In front of imaginary images, we usually retain the consciousness that they are not actual physical realities and are therefore poorer than perceptions.

In our imagination we can relive the past, but we can also create an image of the future. Thus, imagination is able to get ahead of events and free us from the narrowness of the world of concrete things and events. In certain cases, this anticipatory creative imagination actually contributed to the accomplishment of scientific discoveries or the creation of masterpieces of art: after all, what we call intuition is often nothing more than a sudden perception of circumstances and relationships through creative imagination.

Creative imagination plays an extremely important role in art: in literature, painting, sculpture, architecture, as well as in scientific discoveries. The adventures of Don Quixote are a series of fantasies that Miguel de Cervantes put into the head of a half-mad man and which perfectly reflect the more or less conscious realities of society, as well as the efforts to overcome them and achieve the ideal. Romanticism was characterized by a free flight of imagination in search of new sensations and experiences. Beethoven imagined Fate knocking at his door and composed the Fifth Symphony. Leonardo da Vinci, observing the flight of birds, “imagined” that people could fly.

True, in some cases the imagination can and actually becomes an obstacle to the knowledge of reality, the cause of many misconceptions. Often its power is so great that it becomes a barrier between reality and thought, making it difficult for the pure presence of the real in human consciousness (the presence that constitutes true knowledge). Therefore, there are people who take the imaginary for the real, whether we are talking about objects of fear, hope or evaluation. This is how erroneous, that is, unreal, judgments arise. The imagination only imagines and therefore does not itself make mistakes; but it gives rise to erroneous judgments about reality. Spinoza and the rationalists in general reproached the imagination for being the main cause of error, for it forms compound, dark and vague “ideas” - artificial “ideas” that cloud the mind and prevent it from comprehending clear and distinct genuine ideas. Without falling into rationalistic optimism, which believes that everything in the world is possible to think with perfect logic, evidence and necessity (the third mode of knowledge, according to Spinoza’s teaching, is the mode that God possesses), let’s say: in fact, reproductive, creative and anticipatory Images very often confuse not only our minds, but human life as a whole.

An area where the influence of imagination has really proven decisive is myth-making. Strictly speaking, myth is not a theory, but an image or a set of images that hide logical meaning and meaning. It is difficult to say to what extent the myth creators themselves were aware of their own activities. The task of scientific analysis is to find out what rational content was contained in the mythical shell and how the myth was transformed into logos. For example, the need and importance of resisting the temptation of passions is quite clearly expressed in the Greek myth of the Sirens. With their singing they attracted sailors who died in the mouths of Scylla and Charybdis. And only Odysseus resisted temptation and freed himself from it. The ancient Greeks' belief in fatal Fate was reflected in the mythical images of the tragedy "Oedipus the King", created by Sophocles. Sometimes myths served as a means of self-expression for cultures that had not reached a high level of rational development. All primitive peoples have their own myths in which they express their own beliefs. Here again the importance of the human faculty of imagination emerges.

In modern anthropological teachings, imagination is interpreted in a variety of ways in accordance with the general concept of human consciousness. Kant called the “transcendental imagination” the ability intermediate between sensibility and understanding ( Verstand), whose structures make it possible to arrange sensory data according to intellectual categories. For associationists, imagination is the principle of synthesis of the multiple and scattered, aimed at preserving and realizing life; For Gestaltheorie- direct ability to comprehend the forms of the real; for existential phenomenology (Sartre, Merleau-Ponty) - the principle of building behavior, aimed at preserving the original freedom of the subject. Husserl's "intuition of essences" or Bergson's "pure intuition" reduce or completely eliminate the importance of imagination. Meanwhile, the importance of this ability is obvious from any epistemological problem, and therefore from all human life.

The power of imagination is extremely great: sometimes it is even stronger than the power of freedom itself. And, however, there is no such idea generated by the imagination that would not at least partly depend on memory. Thinking and rational abilities also depend greatly on the ability of recollection, called memory. Therefore, we must say at least a few words about it. If you like, it can be considered as one of the internal sensitive abilities, as was said at the beginning of this section; in any case, it is one of the characteristic abilities of the human psyche. Usually, memory is understood as the ability of a human subject to preserve, reproduce and recognize as his own ideas about what was learned or experienced earlier. The decisive difference between memory and imagination lies in recognition, that is, in a more or less clear awareness of the fact that a given phenomenon has already occurred before and now appears as previously experienced.

For the purpose of better understanding, memory is usually divided into sensual And intellectual: the first represents concrete sensations or perceptions of the past, the second reproduces intellectual concepts or judgments learned earlier. Next, they distinguish involuntary memory, natural and spontaneous, and memory arbitrary and free, which depends on our willpower. Finally, they highlight motor, mental and clean memory. The first is the memory of a living body in motion: it accumulates and stores acts repeated in a certain sequence, so that this sequence becomes almost automatic. Many of the acts of our daily life (language, vital functions, reactions, driving a car, orientation in the city, etc.) are manifestations of motor memory. Many animals also have it, although not in a reflective form, and thanks to it they can be tamed. Mental memory accumulates images, ideas, judgments, conclusions, cultural knowledge in general - what constitutes the natural science and humanitarian component of the personality. Clean memory preserves our actions, events or experiences that are imprinted on our soul and become an integral part of our life. This type of memory is personal and specific.

These and other divisions always remain purely formal. Their purpose is to classify various acts of the same human ability - the ability to consciously and reflectively remember facts and phenomena of the past.

Max Scheler studied associative ability, or what he calls “associative memory.” It is absent in plants and is found only in living beings, whose behavior gradually and continuously changes in a direction useful for life, that is, changes meaningfully and on the basis of previous behavior of the same kind. The animal tends to repeat its actions under the influence of an innate tendency to repeat - a tendency due to the "principle of success and error." The animal prefers to repeat those actions that previously led to success, and blocks those that were unsuccessful. This arrangement makes skill acquisition, training and learning possible.

Any type of memory, continues Scheler, is based on a reflex, which Pavlov called conditioned reflex. Its mental analogue is the law of association, according to which a living being, including humans, strives to repeat certain sets of sensations in accordance with the associative laws of similarity, contiguity, contrast, etc. Although associative laws are not rigid in nature and act more like statistical and approximate laws, they serve as the basis for the formation of habits that are so important in human behavior and gradually become more rooted with age, so that in old age a person can become their slave 26.

The experiences we have experienced throughout life settle in our psyche and are part of our “empirical self”. Many of them remain in the depths of the unconscious, or subconscious, no longer being reproduced at the level of reflective consciousness. But even from there they have a profound impact on mental life, as Freud rightly noted. Other experiences are stored in memory and form the richest heritage of the individual, thanks to which human relationships, learning, erudition, psychological development, scientific progress, etc. are possible. To a certain extent, what we are is determined by what we have experienced and what we save in memory. Without memory, human life is impossible. Therefore, with memory loss, a person falls into childhood: this is amnesia, studied by clinical psychology. Social communities also live by memory, which is called tradition: this is the baggage of historical and cultural facts that constitutes the identity of the people. If a people forgets its highest achievements, forgets its traditions, it also falls into infantile imitation. True progress is possible precisely from within a well-thought-out and purified tradition.

Lively discussions took place around animal memory. Undoubtedly, animals have sensory memory. A dog that was treated kindly and lovingly when it was a puppy will grow up differently than one that was treated harshly. Her experiences shape her reactions. In the Odyssey, the dog recognizes Odysseus when he returns home after many years. It is thanks to the repeated association of non-reflective sensory impressions that animals can be trained, respond to stimuli, learn the way, obey the trainer, etc. The difference from humans is that in humans, sensory memory is not just sensory, but reflective. Therefore, a person recognizes the facts of the past as past and as his own, but an animal does not. E. Cassirer warns: “It is not enough to retain in memory the facts of our experience. We must remember them, organize them, synthesize them, combine them into a certain focus of thinking. This kind of recollection reveals a specifically human form of memory and distinguishes it from all other phenomena of animal and organic life” 27. Other, “not learned” reactions of animals are determined, as already mentioned, by instincts that are transmitted through genetic inheritance.

The authors of treatises on epistemology argue about whether memory errors are possible. On the one hand, it is an obvious fact that memory often fails us, and many of our errors are due to faulty memories, incorrect attributions, incorrect interpretations or inaccurate associations. But on the other hand, strictly speaking, error occurs only in judgment as such. For the same reason, the error should be attributed not so much to memory as to suppositum cognoscens, a human subject who has incorrectly formulated a judgment. Memory can produce incorrect or falsified data and thereby mislead the cognizing subject. In addition, memory often acts together with imagination and affects, since they are acts of a single subject. Thus, the reproduction of data stored in memory may be vague, doubtful, ambiguous, and the corresponding judgment may be imprudent or erroneous 28.

5. Intellectual cognition

There is no doubt that in the general evolution of human life, memory plays a very important role: it frees us from the rigidity of instinct and provides us with the opportunity to act through skills. In turn, the fact that many of our actions are carried out through skills opens up before us a wider field of activity according to the prescriptions of thinking: activity, which to the greatest extent constitutes precisely the human property.

It is the actions caused by thinking that we must now consider. It seems to us that understanding and analyzing them is not so difficult. However, starting from the 17th century and even from the 14th century, the possibility of knowledge exceeding the purely sensory was discussed so hotly that a significant part of the philosophy of the Modern and modern era is concerned not so much with knowledge as such, but with the question of the possibility of knowledge. A huge amount of energy is wasted on these discussions.

The world is given to us before any analysis to which it can be subjected. He gives us his reality, and it would be artificial and vain to try to derive the idea of ​​him in our consciousness from a series of synthetic acts, as Kant did, acts that unite sensations through presumptive categories, which, in turn, form judgments. Husserl reproached Kant for “psychologizing mental faculties” and for implementing such noetic analysis, which places the synthetic activity of the subject at the basis of the world, although it would be more realistic to pay attention to the importance, significance and functions of the things themselves 29. Husserl's phenomenology and the most realistic philosophical teachings make a rigid opposition between subject and object impossible. There is no pure subject, torn from the reality of the world and history. The subject and reality mutually determine each other. It is this interdependence that constitutes the totality of our concrete mental world - what Husserl calls the “life world” ( Lebenswelt). Reality as the totality of our living space and our specific mental horizon precedes any private experience and any scientific research, being their common preliminary horizon and determinant.

But before we begin to consider intellectual cognition - one of the most controversial topics - we must clarify what exactly we mean when we talk about understanding and intellect. The Greeks used terms no6uq And l0ogoq, which were translated into Latin as, respectively, intellectus And ratio.

A certain unity and difference between reason and intellect can be traced already in St. Thomas. He writes: “Understanding and reason in a person cannot be different abilities. This is obvious from considering the act of both: to understand means simply to grasp the intelligible reality, to reason means to move from one understood thing to another, cognizing the intelligible truth... People come to the knowledge of the intelligible truth, moving from one to another, and therefore are called reasoning" 30. So, from the point of view of St. Thomas, understanding is the same understanding when it passes from the known to the unknown. We will return to this topic when we talk about so-called rational knowledge.

Rationalists of the New Age (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Wolff) use the terms “understanding” and “reason” differently and sometimes inaccurately. The same is the case with empiricists (Locke, Hume), although among them the concepts of understanding and reason are often understood differently. Reason, or reason, from their point of view, is the ability to combine, reproduce or connect sensations (which they call ideas), without going beyond the boundaries of the purely sensory. Strictly speaking, empiricists see in understanding, or reason, not so much a cognitive ability as the ability to systematize and organize sensory data. Kant continues the same line, highlighting three different abilities in a person: sensuality, or sensory intuition ( Sinnliche Anschauung), grouping sensory data into forms of space and time; understanding ( Verstand), endowed with twelve categories, with the help of which it synthetically thinks various types of experience and constitutes a priori synthetic judgments; and finally, the mind ( Vernunft), which imparts final unity to judgments, grouping them into three large ideas, or totalities, necessarily conceivable, but incomprehensible: the world, I and God. Sensuality cognizes, understanding shapes and synthesizes, reason thinks, but does not cognize.

As we see, from the diversity of opinions, the following tendency is isolated: understanding primarily means knowledge of reality, which comes from sensations, then abstracts and formalizes concepts, compares them and combines them into judgments; reason is the highest intellectual activity aimed at connecting judgments and knowledge and establishing final unity between them, and reason moves forward through deductive or inductive reasoning (which we will talk about later).

The human faculty of understanding can be described in more detail if we add to the definition an indication of its three main functions. They constitute a specific characteristic of a thinking person, who alone can implement them. These functions are: 1) the ability to cognize and express the real as real; 2) the ability to be present for oneself, which St. Thomas called reditio completa subiecti in seipsum; 3) the ability to abstract, form and connect general concepts with each other, based on individual and specific realities. Let's say a few words about each of these abilities.

We have already outlined Subiri's theory, which seems to us correct 31 . She argues that it is impossible in the proper sense to separate sensation and thinking, as if they were acts of two essentially different abilities, two different modes of consciousness. Human thinking, immersed in bodily sensuality, gains access to reality only V feelings and through them. But this is true. Understanding (“intelligence,” says Subiri) is the actualization of the real precisely as real in sensory thinking. As has already been said, the animal grasps reality only as a stimulus; a person comprehends the real precisely as the real, and the stimulus as a stimulating reality. To comprehend the real as real is to reflectively recognize that there are beings that have a “self,” that is, existing “in themselves,” independently of my subjectivity. To know intellectually means to allow the structures of the real to be present in my consciousness. Thus, we know when we grasp things as realities, and we know the more intellectually as a greater reality becomes present to us. So, a person has an experience of reality as such, which an animal does not have. And this is possible only because such experience is not just the experience of pure sensuality, but of feeling thinking. Reality is not only and not so much an object as a foundation. Thinking is the comprehension of this foundation object, a presenting and conscious comprehension. Any other intellectual acts, such as, for example, the act of ideation, comprehension ( concebir), judgments, etc., are ways of embracing reality and expressing reality in the thinking consciousness. Therefore, grasping reality is an elementary, primary and exclusive act of thinking.

In a single act of sensation-thinking, we grasp not only color, shape, volume, pleasant or unpleasant, but the fact that this thing There is. Therefore we directly answer: this There is man, tree, car. Sensations alone could not provide such an answer. Thus, strictly speaking, it is not sensuality that “provides” the intellect with material for processing (Aristotelian dualism), but the impression of reality itself is one integral act of thinking sensation and feeling thinking. The object is not given by sensations thinking, A in thinking itself. Therefore, it is incorrect to talk about “artificial intelligence”, as is customary today. Processors and computers, with all their sophistication, deal only with the formal content of what is embedded in them, but never with the meaning of reality, which is a specific feature of human intelligence. Therefore, there is no true “artificial intelligence”.

In this theory, Subiri is not at all despised by sensory knowledge, as it was in the teachings of Plato, Descartes and the idealists, it is not despised precisely because it is not only sensory. The other already mentioned functions of thinking, which we will now talk about, are not missed in Subiri’s concept. Here it is only stated that the most radical, primary thing that forms thinking should be recognized as the grasping of the real as such.

At St. Thomas there is one curious and little-known text, where he already hints at such a unity of the somatic and spiritual in the human psyche. The Angelic Doctor seems to attribute to thought a true causal action in relation to sensations. Sensory consciousness is involved in thinking and is derived from it as its direct consequence due to the identity of the subject. Hence the statement of St. Thomas: “Mental faculties, which are the highest ( priores) in the order of perfection and nature, are the final and efficient causes of other abilities. We see that feeling exists through understanding, and not vice versa. Feeling is a certain incomplete participation in understanding; From here it follows that, according to the natural order, feeling in some way comes from understanding, just as the imperfect comes from the perfect.”32

The scholastics realized that in reality the specificity of intellectual knowledge lies in cognizing the real precisely as real. This idea they expressed in their characteristic terms, saying that formal object human understanding is existence as such, and its adequate material object embraces all existing things. With the first statement they wanted to say that the aspect or formal side with which an object is cognized by the intellectual cognitive ability is always real (existent in reality or in possibility). This formula shows that any reality that appears to our understanding can be expressed in a judgment, the linking verb of which (“is” or “is not”) is explicitly and formally correlated with being. Even about a fictitious entity - for example, about the sphinx - we speak of it as consisting of real parts (the body of an animal, the head and chest of a woman), and we affirm its concept as unreal, because we understand the real as real, and the fictitious as refutation of reality as an imaginary existence.

The fact that every existing thing is an adequate material object of human understanding is also deduced from what was said above: wherever and however something exists, understanding can assert about it, at least, what it is, and point out some of it. properties. St. Thomas says: “The proper object of understanding is the intelligible being, which includes all possible types and varieties of existing things; for everything that can be can be comprehended" 33 . The scholastics expressed the same thing in the famous statement omne ens est verum(Everything that exists is true). This means that everything that exists, insofar as it exists, can be grasped by the understanding; that everything real has an intelligible structure corresponding to our intellect. As we have already said, it is inconceivable that something unthinkable could exist.

Following in the same direction as H. Subiri, the scholastics argued that the object that best suits to human understanding, combined with sensuality, that is, an object cognizable first of all, directly and spontaneously, is quidditas ( whatness ) material or sensory things. This must be understood as follows: when through the medium of the senses we receive an impression of some material thing, then in the same act the understanding perceives something belonging to the essence or nature of the thing (to its Quidditas); so that to the question of what this thing is, we can give an answer that formulates its difference from all other things. We in no way want to say that in the act of feeling-comprehension we intuitively cognize the essence or that it is not difficult for us to perfectly cognize the essential nature of material reality. We only affirm that in this act we in some way we grasp the nature of sensible things 34 .

Thanks to this perception of reality or existence, a person is able to form and express judgments. To understand means to form judgments. According to Kant's fair remark, judgment is a perfect act of understanding. But judgment is nothing other than an affirmation of being. With the exception of purely logical or mathematical judgments, they always represent something more than a logical connection between concepts: a judgment is a recognized statement of objective reality. Its essence is that a sentence consisting of a subject, a verb and a predicate states that something There is and remains just that. When I speak: this table [is] small, this sky is blue, this device is a typewriter, this man named Juan is smart- or express any other judgment, then I affirm some known reality: what it is and what it is. A judgment is a statement of reality or, what is the same, a statement of truth. This is an absolute estimate of the absolute: There is. We are fully aware of the fact that in many judgments we express reality in an absolute and unconditional form. We know that when we say: There is, we say this not only for ourselves, in our thinking or in our subjective representation, but we affirm reality as it is in itself. Understanding is guided by being; being is open to understanding. Being serves as the condition for the very possibility of judgment. Therefore, in the affirmation of judgment, Kantian idealism is already overcome, and precisely with the help of the transcendental method.

This does not mean that any judgment is always necessarily true. Naturally, there are erroneous judgments: after all, their accuracy is determined by many circumstances. In other words, in many situations and for many reasons, a clear and obvious presence of being is not always established in human consciousness. Below we will talk about truth, authenticity and error. But when a judgment is expressed unconditionally, it always has absolute meaning, because it expresses what is, it expresses reality, and reality is absolutely significant. Moreover, in the affirmation of every judgment, even a particular one, the exit of thinking to the universality of being is verified. The statement contained in the linking verb of judgment dynamically expresses the orientation of the intellect towards its own object: being. This is how the fundamental structure of human thinking is revealed: it grasps being in its universality - or, rather, it is nothing more than being, realizing itself in man. This was already noticed by Hegel and Heidegger 35 . Karl Rahner, in the work that we have already quoted, writes about it this way: “Being and knowledge are connected by an original unity... Knowledge is the subjectivity of being itself. Existence itself is primordial unifying the connection of being and knowledge in their unity realized in known being... Cognition is understood as the subjectivity of being itself, as being-in-the-face-of-being ( als beisichsein des Seins). Being itself is already a unity that initially unifies being and knowledge; it ontologically» 36.

The opportunity to cognize being, all being, turns out to be at the same time the source of human anxiety, the insatiability of the human spirit, which constantly yearns to know more - more being. He never rests in any intrahuman knowledge, nor in any ultimate truth, because none of them gives him the fullness of being. Man continues to inquire about the final and decisive foundation of his own existence and the world as a whole. This is equivalent to asking about Absolute Being, to which every human consciousness inevitably gravitates. And only here can it find peace 37.

It is necessary to warn that one should not identify being with matter. Although intellectual knowledge begins with sensations, according to the statement “Omnis cognitio incipit a sensu” (“All knowledge begins with sensation”), nevertheless, the intellect tends to overcome the boundaries of the actual empirical data and rise to its own being, and therefore to metasensory realities, about what else are we going to talk about. In such overcoming lies the value, wonder and mystery of the human spirit, which elevates man above all other creatures in the world. Only materialists confuse being with matter.

What has been said must be supplemented with the remark that it is also characteristic of human understanding to cognize the intelligible structure of sensory reality. Of course, we perceive sensory data, for example, about this table at which I am writing. My eyes and hands inform me of its material reality. But the cognizing human subject does not stop there. Immediately and more or less reflectively I am aware that the table contains a certain expediency: you can write on it, it's made for this purpose. Further, I am aware that the table was made by a furniture maker, that is, it has producing cause. Moreover, I understand that the table exists transient and random, he didn't exist a thousand years ago; and therefore it does not contain within itself the basis of its own existence. So in one act of knowing the table I grasp metasensual, metaphysical realities: expediency, efficient causality, chance. Plato placed the idea or form of realities in the supercelestial world; Aristotle astutely saw that intelligible ideas, forms and structures are contained in the most sensible reality, and with remarkable accuracy he called them l0ogoq\en6uloq(intrinsic logos). The miracle of the human intellect is that it is able to read the intelligible reality of material things and rise to a much higher level of knowledge than the knowledge of concrete sense data.

For the transition from the sensory to the intelligible, Aristotelian-scholastic philosophy proposed the following sequence of beings: an imaginary sensory image; the active intellect, which illuminates the sensory image and forms the unexpressed intellectual image ( species); possibilistic intelligence that forms a pronounced intellectual image, or concept: a concept is not a knowable thing, but a means of cognition of reality. The key function belongs to the acting intellect. In general, this scholastic theory is acceptable, although the division of the act of human cognition into several problematic units seems unnecessary.

Now let's move on to another unique and specific function of human thinking - to ability to be present for oneself, or to what in Thomist language is called reditio completa subiectu in seipsum. One can also, following Hegel, call this function self-consciousness or self-reflection. St. Thomas borrows his idea of ​​her from Liber de Causis(Books of Causes) - a summary (perhaps written by a Muslim) of the Elementatio Theologica (Principles of Theology) of Proclus. The literal formulation is as follows: “Every knower who knows his essence turns to his essence, making a complete revolution” 38. And St. Thomas adds: “Returning to one’s essence means