The era of rationalism philosophy. What is rationalism
In modern psychological terminology there are many definitions that we do not fully understand. Some have historical origins, based on experience gained in war and negotiations; others come from philosophical teachings, therefore they exist outside of time and space. Well, let's look at some of them.
Rationalism is a worldview that is fully based on an objective perception of the environment. As you know, everything that exists in our world closely interacts with each other. This manifests itself in relationships between people (business, official, hostile, etc.), in friendship with animals, in interaction with flora, as well as with objects of inanimate nature (water, gas, oil, air). In this context, rationalism is a sound assessment of the qualities and properties of each of the above-mentioned elements, on the basis of which a particular subject performs his actions in relation to something or someone.
In this definition, the main place is occupied by the concept of impartiality. A rational person does not experience love for beauty, and in the same way he is not characterized by cruelty. He cuts off from his consciousness any habits imposed by culture, does not obey customs (most often the most ridiculous ones), and is not involved in religion. Rationalism is prudence, it is knowledge of the world by studying it. It is based entirely on facts and not on spiritual impulses and prophecies.
To make it clearer, we will provide examples of people who are rationalists. Among them, the overwhelming majority are skeptics, convinced of the complete materiality of our world. All scientists, starting from the time of the Sumerians, were convinced rationalists. Today, their “genus” continues and is replenished, and, it is worth noting, so far all scientific dogmas have demonstrated to us their truthfulness. There are also “ignorant” rationalists - these are agnostics, perfectionists, materialists.
Now let's try to reveal the principle of rationalism, which will allow us to understand the essence of the subject. Firstly, it consists in understanding the world through experience, research, experiment, which is carried out on the material level. Everything that is visible and tangible exists, but that about which this cannot be said simply does not exist. Secondly, the world consists of material elements. Even the air is filled with atoms and molecules that function in a specific order. Chaos is unacceptable for rationalism, unlike poetry, music and other “ephemeral” arts and teachings.
Philosophical rationalism occupies a special place in our world. Any skeptic will immediately say that the term is absurd, since philosophy is characterized by a certain mysticism, fixation on experiences, subjectivity, that is, everything that is opposite to the material worldview. However, nowadays even this science has been able to rationalize its currents, divide them and concretize them. Each ethnic group developed its own philosophy, so to speak, a common one, which determined the spiritual orientation of the people and morality. In turn, each individual family and each individual has its own philosophy.
Generally speaking, we can say that rationalism is a worldview inherent only to reasonable people. It is also worth emphasizing life experience, which often shows that each of us is the sole master of our destiny, our environment - both spiritual and material.
rationalism) P. - philosopher a position according to which the decisive role in establishing the truth belongs to reason. It can be contrasted with empiricism, which considers experience a necessary condition for the acquisition of knowledge. From view rationalist, ideas are innate in nature, and from the point of view. empirics - they are acquired. R.'s influence on science appeared a very long time ago; it is noticeable both in the deductive geometry created by the Pythagoreans and in the formalized rules of Aristotle's logic. In modern times, R. retains his influence in such fields as mathematics, and has received support from such prominent thinkers as Jules Henri Poincaré, who argued that the concept of number is purely intuitive and cannot be comprehended on an empirical basis. Dr. philosophers take more radical views, believing that even the rules of the inductive sciences are based on rationalistic assumptions. Alfred North Whitehead noted that "the very difficult task of applying reason to discover the general characteristics of an observed case presented to us for direct knowledge is a necessary preliminary action if we intend to confirm induction." As for modern science, the purely rationalistic approach to problem solving was destroyed by two arguments. First, the history of science is clear that the scientific enterprise involves making observations, making predictions, and testing how well results agree with theory. It is obvious that science is not strictly rational, but empirical - to the extent that it depends on the accumulation of facts. It must be admitted that Descartes' great desire to extract all knowledge from a few irrefutable ideas turned out to be unrealistic. Apparently, scientific progress is impossible without empirical testing and correction of theories. postulates. The test of truth is based on evidence, and in this case one looks to facts rather than to innate knowledge. Laws must be confirmed by the senses, and not just by the mind. Secondly, rationalistic certainty was attacked in its own stronghold - mathematics, where Kurt Gödel showed that logical consistency could not be proven for uncountable sets. In other words, we have to admit the impossibility of guaranteeing the rules of mathematics only on a rational basis. Psychology, in its desire to be scientific, has refrained from uncompromising rationalistic interpretations, with the exception of its periphery, where religious and existential assumptions about the nature of people. and the meaning of life sometimes acquired a strong rationalistic overtones. So, the philosophy of Sartre, main. on a strictly logical analysis of the consequences of the relationship between “in itself” and “for itself”, revived radical rationalist ideas. Based on some self-evident, intuitive considerations, Sartre resorted to deduction to explain the development of personality and the psychopathology of the individual. Psychologists have tried to confirm their theories through observation, using data both from introspective reports and from direct observation of outward manifestations of behavior. That is why R.'s influence on modern times. psychology is usually found only in a transformed form. Titchener, one of the leaders of introspectionism, considered consciousness “merely the sum total of mental processes experienced by an individual throughout his life.” According to Titchener, studying psychology means asking subjects about what is happening in their minds in different situations and under different conditions. Like other introspectionists, he believed in the existence of three classes of mental. elements: sensations, ideas and feelings. This three-component division of subjective experience, apparently, can be qualified as a logical conclusion drawn on the basis of introspection data. Dr. an example of R.'s influence on psychology. The theory is Maslow's motivational approach, which establishes a hierarchy of values based on the premise that the satisfaction of needs occupying higher positions is possible only after the needs located at the lower levels of the hierarchy are satisfied. One gets the impression that this hierarchy was created intuitively and permeated with R. Its creator clearly proceeded from the fact that any reasonable person. agrees with such a gradation of human needs. R.'s influence can also be found in such a prosaic activity of psychologists as constructing personality questionnaires. Burish considers three main approaches to test construction: external (empirical, based on group criteria), inductive (internal, based on internal consistency, punctometric) and deductive (rational, intuitive, theoretical). The deductive or rational method is supported by psychologists who are "confident of the possibility of creating a scale for any personality trait that has a name in ordinary language." In other words, the premise is that, logically, any reasonable test designer can decide what questions to ask to best measure a given personality trait. It should be noted that rational analysis can also be applied to those areas that are usually considered to be outside the scope of scientific research. How do we know what is “good” or what is “ethical”? The rationalist believes that at least some questions related to ethics or moral values cannot be answered “scientifically,” but philosophically. t.zr. they - nevertheless - make sense. For example, George E. Moore drew a line between “good as a means,” which is subject to scientific study because it has consequences, and “good as such,” which deals with concepts that are extremely simple and cannot be operationally defined. Consequently, the rationalist believes that when it comes to answering questions about intrinsic value, reason takes precedence. See also Methods of empirical research, Empiricism, Logical positivism, Operationalism, Positivism E. Wagner
Rationalism (from Latin rationalis - reasonable) is a rational view of the world, based on impartial perception, study and knowledge of the facts of objective reality through reason and the scientific method. A distinctive feature of rationalism from other ideological positions is the requirement of sufficient justification and evidence when establishing the truth about the facts of objective reality. A rational picture of the world is a natural-scientific picture of the world, since science is the sphere of rational knowledge and objective study of reality. In addition, rationalism is a worldview of rejection of harmful, superstitious, frivolous, dubious, unfounded and false ideas, cut off according to the principle of “Occam’s razor” due to their inappropriateness, dubiousness and groundlessness. Such ideas include not only esoteric-spiritual ideas, such as, for example, belief in the presence of a soul, God or brownies, but also so-called “bad habits”, destructive hobbies (for example, killing animals) and dubious stereotypes of thinking (opinions - " cliches" based on ignorance and prejudice).
WHO IS A RATIONALIST
A rationalist is a person whose worldview is rational. Rationalists include skeptics, scientists, people engaged in scientific activities or studying scientific disciplines, atheists, objectivists, and some perfectionists.
PRINCIPLES OF RATIONALISM
The basis of knowledge is rational research. Scientific objective, universal and necessary knowledge is achievable only through reason. True knowledge can only be obtained by the method of reasonable research, logical assessment or practical experience/experiment.
The world is material. The mind is based on material things. The world consists of matter (atoms, waves, fields - all these are forms of matter). Nothing non-material exists in the world. And matter exists within the framework of the physical laws of objective reality, to which it obeys. Therefore, the material world is not chaotic, but orderly and develops along the path of cause-and-effect interactions. Objects and beings of objective reality are material. There are no non-material objects or beings (entities) in objective reality. Mind and consciousness are material objects, being the main derivative of the activity of the material brain and cannot be considered separately from the brain.
Only science gives real ideas about the world. Since only science uses the scientific method in knowledge, which requires logical arguments, strong justifications and real evidence of established facts of objective reality. One of the most important principles of science - the requirement of sufficient validity of scientific theories is a reliable protection against the formation of false ideas about objective reality. Another advantage of the scientific worldview is that in science there is a constant updating and clarification of knowledge, thus, in the event of a scientific error, it is promptly falsified with new data indicating its falsity.
The “spiritual” does not exist without the material. Everything that is commonly called “spiritual” (art, humanism, morality) is derived from the mental, which in turn is based on the activity of the material mind, the brain. If we talk about religious ideas, they are based on delusions, ignorance and an inadequate worldview.
Morality also exists thanks to material things. Moral standards are based on requirements, preferences and ideas about harm and benefit to the material body and mind. Morality is a psychological phenomenon and comes from norms based on the preferences of the body, brain, and consciousness. In this connection, the concept of morality is very subjective. However, at the same time, morality also has a high degree of objectivity, which in turn is explained by its material origin, the similarity of the principles of the structure of consciousness of different beings.
THE ESSENCE OF RATIONALISM
Rationalism is not an ideology, not a cult, and not a “philosophical school”, but a “pure” worldview that does not pretend to create a common stereotype of worldview for the sake of achieving any ideal or path to achieving any state of happiness that is universal for all. The meaning of a rational worldview, its essence, is rational adequate knowledge about reality, the disclosure of the truth about the facts of objective reality with the aim of further effective application of acquired knowledge. For rationalism, achieving a state of happiness is not an end in itself, but knowledge itself, the process and moment of revealing the truth about the facts of objective reality, can be perceived as such a state. In this connection, rationalism, as the ultimate goal of existence, does not see the achievement of happiness or an ideal as a kind of static state, but the very movement forward, new discoveries, constant progress and improvement.
Thus, rationalism is a worldview of objective ideas, a broad outlook, freedom from dogmatic (ideological, religious, nationalistic) ideas, setting new tasks, finding new solutions, discovering new facts, self-improvement, improving existing systems, correcting previous mistakes, individual development and civilization as a whole.
RATIONALISM(from lat. ratio - reason) - a philosophical and ideological attitude, according to which the true foundations of being, knowledge and behavior of people are principles reason . In philosophy, the term “reason” was transferred from theology, where it denoted a direction whose supporters insisted on purifying religion from everything that could not find a reasonable explanation and subjected the dogmas of faith to logical analysis. Philosophical rationalism goes back to Antiquity: to the teaching of Socrates that beauty and goodness are expediency, and true knowledge is a sufficient condition for ethical behavior; Plato's doctrine of ideas as true substantial reality; Aristotle’s teaching about the cosmic mind as a universal condition of being and thinking, etc. Ancient rationalism was rethought by medieval theology, which combined the idea of divine reason as the meaning and root cause of world existence with the doctrine of the super-reasonability of the divine will, its incomprehensibility and incomprehensibility by the human mind. In the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, the truths of reason were declared subordinate, “servant” in relation to the truths of faith and revelation, but within its competence (knowledge of nature, mathematics, positive law, ethics and politics), reason was considered the main guide of man as a rational being (Ratio est potissima hominis natura - reason is the most powerful nature of man). Nicholas of Cusa put forward the idea that the finite human mind is capable of endlessly approaching the divine, never reaching its fullness, but never interrupting its approach to it. The tendency towards the elevation of the human mind, inherent in the humanism of the Renaissance (Erasmus of Rotterdam, etc.), met fierce opposition from the ideologists of the Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, etc.), who saw philosophical rationalism as a threat to true faith. However, their attitude to reason was ambivalent: rejecting the philosophical claims of rationalism as unfounded and even sinful (“Reason is the devil’s whore,” Luther said), Protestantism at the same time allowed the participation of empirical science in the knowledge of God, since the subject of natural science was the world as a divine creation , controlled by God in every moment. This, to a certain extent, freed science from the dogmatic control of theology and contributed to the development of scientific rationalism. To an even greater extent, Protestantism stimulated rationalistic behavioral attitudes with its moral sanction of entrepreneurship and productive labor, legal institutions that objectively promote the development of democracy.
The classical paradigm of rationalism was created by European philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries. (Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, Leibniz). In the teachings of these thinkers, the idea of the supreme intelligence of Divine creation stood on the ground prepared by the development of natural science and mathematics. Starting from the scholastic methods of speculative search for the fundamental principles of being, rationalism turned to the problems of the scientific method. Central among them was the problem of the foundations of scientific knowledge. Her intended solution was guided by one of two fundamental strategies. The first strategy (most clearly formulated by Locke) was to believe that experience (empiricism) is the only reliable source of scientific knowledge. The second strategy took mathematics as a model of true knowledge, which in the 17th century. began to be used in the study of natural phenomena (Galileo, Kepler). The path of mathematics, starting with obvious and undoubted truths, was recognized as the most consistent with the attitude of rationalism and, therefore, the general method of cognition.
The fundamental requirement of classical rationalism is the achievement of absolute and unchangeable truth, which has universal validity for any normal human mind. This requirement seemed incompatible with the strategy of empiricism (experience is finite and unreliable, knowledge obtained from experience can only be considered probable and relative). Therefore, the version of rationalism associated with the second strategy gradually began to define the rationalist attitude as a whole. This determines the meaning of the opposition “rationalism - empiricism,” which largely determined the content of discussions on scientific methodology for almost three centuries. Supporters of both strategies were united by the cult of reason and the highest trust in the possibilities of science, therefore the methodological disputes between the supporters of Descartes and Locke can be considered as a manifestation of the internal contradictions of classical rationalism.
To the characteristic features of rationalism of the 17th–18th centuries. include: an exceptionally high assessment of deduction as a method of developing a system of knowledge from undoubted and obvious grounds; “universal mathematics” (mathesis universalis) as the ideal and example of any science; identification of logical and cause-and-effect relationships, which meant for rationalism the identity of the structures of being and thinking (ordo et connectio idearum est ac ordo et connectio rerum - the order and connection of ideas are the same as the order and connection of things); confidence that a person, by the power of his reason, is able to deduce an intelligible first cause and source of being; epistemological optimism - the belief that Reason has no limits anywhere and its development is, in principle, endless; high appreciation of science and its role in people’s lives and in the structure of culture. The ideas of rationalism played an extremely important role in the formation of the ideology of the Enlightenment, which linked historical progress with the development of the rational principles of human existence. Considering God as the rational root cause of the world, human history as the consistent action of this root cause, leading people from savagery and barbarism to civilization and morality, the enlighteners put forward a program of social transformations based on a social contract, implemented by the purposeful efforts of humanity, united by the principles of reason.
The most important and at the same time the most difficult problem of classical rationalism was the determination of the fundamental and unconditional foundations of knowledge (Descartes considered “innate ideas” to be such, Leibniz - predispositions or inclinations of thinking, Spinoza - intellectual intuitions). The truth of these foundations is guaranteed by God, and therefore the “natural light of reason” (lumen naturale), illuminating the path to truth, is kindled and continuously maintained in the human soul by the creator of the Universe. However, the further development of science, which strengthened the tendency towards its “secularization” and autonomy in relation to metaphysics, stimulated the philosophical search for new versions of rationalism. Kant’s “Critical Philosophy” was an attempt to combine the strategy of rationalism with the strategy of empiricism: the boundaries of rational knowledge, according to Kant, coincide with the sphere of applicability of scientific methodology, the world of phenomena, “phenomena,” but the universality and universal truth of the laws of mathematical natural science is guaranteed by the apriority of sensory intuitions (intuition) space and time, as well as the categorical structure of the mind. However, Kant, abandoning the inherent appeal to the absolute as a guarantor of the truth of fundamental principles, characteristic of classical rationalism, and shifting the center of gravity to the attitude of criticism, thereby abandoned the metaphysical claims of rationalism, leaving exclusively methodological functions for the latter. “Transcendental subject”, claiming true knowledge of “things in themselves”, i.e. to go beyond the boundaries of rational science into the world of “noumena”, Kant inevitably believed that he encountered destructive antinomies, with “dialectics” that destroys the scientific significance of rationalism.
Trying to overcome the Kantian dualism of the worlds of the transcendental “I” and “things in themselves,” Schelling formulated the concept of the identity of spirit and nature, which have a common basis in absolute reason. Empirical science, the subject of which are individual natural objects and their relationships, occupies, according to Schelling, a subordinate position in relation to natural philosophy, which is addressed to the Absolute itself, to the principles by which it creates all its concrete forms. Natural philosophical rationalism came into conflict with the main trends of contemporary natural science (primarily with empiricism) and was regarded by most scientists as an attempt to restore speculative metaphysics and mysticism.
In Hegel's philosophy, rationalism is united with dialectics, which acts as the universal logic of self-knowledge of reason, or the absolute idea, as the logic of the universal world process and at the same time as the fundamental theory of knowledge. The identification of thinking and reality (panlogism) gave Hegelian rationalism the character of speculative natural philosophy, which, with its style and methodological orientation, contrasted with the dominant style of science, although dialectical ideas in the 19th century. noticeably resonated with methodological reflection on major scientific results in biology, physics, chemistry, cosmology (which was noted by K. Marx and F. Engels). In Hegelian philosophy, the classical paradigm of rationalism received its most consistent expression, having essentially exhausted its possibilities. The further development of rationalism was associated with attempts to resolve the internal contradictions of this paradigm, as well as a reaction to criticism of it from those thinkers who considered the claims of reason to dominate in all spheres of reality, to the role of the universal basis of human activity and the historical process, as unfounded. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard pointed out the main ways of criticizing rationalism, which were subsequently traversed and repeated many times by philosophers of the 20th century. (existentialism, “philosophy of life”, intuitionism, pragmatism, Freudianism and neo-Freudianism, etc.). Rationalism was criticized primarily as a worldview and methodological attitude, as a model for the organization of society and the main spheres of human practice, human behavior, as a set of corresponding ideals and values. In this regard, the idea of man as a rational being par excellence, of rational necessity allegedly guiding the action of historical laws, and of the ability of science to achieve true and objective knowledge were criticized. Giant social disasters of the 20th century. (world wars, extermination of peoples, the deadlocked moral evolution of humanity, the danger of self-destruction of humanity, ecological collapse) began to be viewed as consequences of rationalism’s claims to a dominant role in world culture (Horkheimer, Adorno), interpreted as the realization of the inherently human desire for dominance and power . In the eyes of most critics, rationalism is only a mask created by a certain cultural tradition, behind which a deeply irrational human nature is hidden.
Responding to the challenge of criticism, modern rationalism opposes it with a number of counterarguments, which together represent an attempt to keep the main traditions of European and world culture from the decay that threatens them. Thus, critical rationalism (Popper and others) focuses on the ability of reason to overcome any errors and act as the basis of a democratic, or “open, society”; the cause of social cataclysms should be seen not in the vices of rationalism, but, on the contrary, in irrationalism, which inevitably sets in when reason retreats from its positions and loses active supporters. Neo-rationalism (Bachelard and others) advocated reforming rationalism in the spirit of the requirements of modern science and technology (through the integration of fundamental scientific methods and changing the main strategy of scientific knowledge towards the conceptual construction of reality, attracting productive imagination, creative intuition, metaphysical “insights”); The goal of the reform is the reintegration of rational thinking and human cultural activity. Some technocratic trends in social philosophy (Bell, Schelsky, Galbraith, etc.) are associated with attempts to create a new paradigm of rationalism, in which the principles of rationality (in science, technology, economics, politics) are combined with humanistic, religious and aesthetic guidelines for human activity.
The fate of the classical and non-classical versions of rationalism is inextricably linked with the historical evolution of European (and through it, world, universal) culture. The modern crisis of culture, which in all likelihood has approached a turning point in its history, seriously affects the foundations of rationalism, criticism of which often takes on a countercultural character. Therefore, modern rationalism, responding to the challenge of the time, evolves towards greater adaptability, assimilates dialogic forms of interaction between cultures, abandons the excessive rigidity and a priori nature of its boundaries - and at the same time insists on the fundamental role of the rational principles of human existence.
Literature:
- Leibniz G.V. New experiments on human understanding. – It's him. Op. in 4 vols., vol. 2. M., 1983;
- Descartes R. Discussion about the method. – It's him. Op. in 2 vols., vol. 1. M., 1989;
- Spinoza B. Favorite Prod., vol. 1–2. M., 1957;
- Bachelard G. New rationalism. M., 1987;
- In search of a theory of the development of science. M., 1982;
- Shestov L. On Job's scales. – In the book: He is the same. Op. in 2 vols., vol. 2. M., 1993;
- Gaidenko P.P. Evolution of the concept of science (XVII–XVIII centuries). M., 1987;
- Shashkevich P.D. Empiricism and rationalism in the philosophy of modern times. M., 1976;
- Lecky J. History of Rationalism. L., 1865.
Rationalism in the philosophy of modern times.
RATIONALISM(lat. rationalis - reasonable, ratio - reason) - a direction in epistemology that considers the only source of reliable knowledge not experience, but reason.
Rationalists believe that such signs of reliable knowledge as universality And necessity cannot be obtained either from experience or from generalizations of experimental data. Universal and necessary knowledge can only be gleaned from reason itself.
The founder of the philosophy of rationalism of this period was the French scientist Rene Descartes(1596-1650). Along with F. Bacon, Descartes stood at the origins of the philosophical tradition of the New Age. Just like Bacon, Descartes is busy solving the problem of reliable knowledge, however, if Bacon looks for signs of the reliability of knowledge in experience, then Descartes - in reason.
Descartes draws attention to the fact that our cognitive thinking contains a number of ideas that cannot be obtained either from experience or through induction (we are talking about such abstract concepts as, for example, the ideas of God, substance, space, time, etc. ). He concludes that such ideas are contained in our mind initially, before any experience, from birth. It is precisely by the innate character of ideas that Descartes explains the possibility intellectual intuition, the effect of which is manifested in the fact that the truth of certain provisions for our mind appears directly self-evident with all clarity and distinctness (for example, the axiomatics of geometry).
In order to avoid mistakes on the path of scientific research, Descartes suggests using method of radical doubt. Descartes formulates it as follows: “Never take anything on faith of which you are obviously not sure; that is, carefully avoid haste and prejudice and include in your judgments only what appears to my mind so clearly and distinctly that in no way can give rise to doubt." In other words, any proposition, the truth of which can in principle be questioned, should be considered false until the contrary is proven. We can doubt the truth of not only abstract propositions (for example, such as “God exists,” “The Earth revolves around the Sun,” etc.), but also the truth of data from our senses, because we can assume that our feelings deceive us (as evidenced by dreams and illusions). Proceeding along the path of radical doubt, we must discover a position whose truth cannot be doubted in principle. Only on the basis of such undoubted evidence should the entire body of scientific (reliable) knowledge be built. Descartes discovers such undoubted certainty in the active activity of our mind (after all, the act of doubt is an act of thought), in self-consciousness. “I think, therefore I am”- this is the most reliable of all judgments, according to Descartes.
Another of the most important methods of the philosophy of rationalism is deduction, or analytics. Deduction is a process of reasoning from the general to the specific.
Descartes claims that the entire diversity of reality through deduction can be reduced to two ultimate, elementary foundations (substances), which, in turn, are not reducible to each other, i.e. mutually independent. Thus, Descartes takes the position dualism. These two substances are matter (nature) and soul.
To resolve the issue of the qualitative certainty of substance, Descartes uses the concept attribute.
Attribute- this is an integral (necessary) property of a substance, expressing its essence.
Descartes calls an attribute of matter length(expansion in space), and the attribute of the soul is thinking.
Thus, extended substance (material world, nature) and thinking substance are two mutually independent realities, with their own laws.
In nature, everything is subject to the mechanical laws of causality. First of all, there is the principle of conservation, according to which the amount of motion remains constant. The second is the principle of inertia. Descartes explains any change in direction only by a push from other bodies. A body will not stop or slow down unless another body stops it. So, the principle of conservation and, as a consequence, the principle of inertia are the basic laws governing nature. All physical bodies, including the bodies of animals and humans, are subject to these principles. Contrary to Aristotle’s theory of the soul, any living principle (vegetative or sensory) is excluded from the plant and animal world. Animals and human bodies are mechanisms, “automata,” or “self-propelled machines” of varying degrees of complexity.
Unlike all creatures, man combines two substances - soul and body. Descartes' dualism proceeds from the fact that the soul and body are two realities that have nothing in common. However, our experience testifies to the constant interaction of these two substances in man, as can be seen from the fact of voluntary movements of bodies and sensations reflected in the soul. This problem of psychophysical interaction(the interaction of soul and body in man) in Descartes’ system of dualism became the greatest difficulty, and, in fact, remained fundamentally unresolved by the French thinker.
The further development of the principles of rationalism in the philosophy of the New Age is associated with the teachings of Spinoza and Leibniz.
Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza(1632-1677).
Spinoza's major work, Ethics, is based on deductive-geometric method(in the manner of Euclid's geometry). He begins his “Ethics” with definitions (simple and clear definitions), then formulates axioms (intuitively true and reliable provisions), from which he deduces theorems deductively.
Spinoza believes that the connections and relationships that explain reality are the expression rational necessity. God (or substance) or a triangle - everything is considered with the same precision with which theorems are solved: they “act” strictly according to the rules. Therefore, everything, including God, can be "proven" with the same absolute rigor that is inherent in mathematics.
In addition, the geometric method gives the advantage of a non-emotional interpretation of the subject, ensuring impartial objectivity. This attitude (the requirement to be objective) is expressed in the following principle of Spinoza’s philosophy: “ Don't laugh, don't cry and don't turn away - but understand".
The central problem of Spinoza's philosophy is question of substance. Spinoza defines substance as the cause of itself. If Descartes proceeded from dualism, then Spinoza took the position monism ( recognition of one substance underlying existence ) . According to Spinoza, there is only one substance. He calls this one substance God or nature (here we find pantheism Spinoza).
The divine substance is free, because exists and acts according to the necessity of its own nature; it is eternal because existence lies in its essence.
Spinoza claims that there is nothing in the world except substance and its manifestations. Spinoza calls manifestations of substance attributes And modes. Attributes are inherent (necessary) properties of a substance. Modes are properties (states) of a substance that are not necessary.
Spinoza believes that substance has countless attributes, but only two of them are open (known) to human knowledge: thinking and extension.
Spinoza divides modes (states of substance) into two groups: infinite modes And final modes. Infinite modes are ideas, abstractions (for example, mind, will, movement, rest, etc.). Finite modes are singular things.
By God, Spinoza understands substance with its infinite attributes; the world, on the contrary, consists of modes, infinite and finite. However, some cannot exist without others, therefore, everything is inevitably determined (causally determined) by the nature of God, nothing exists by chance, and the world is a necessary “consequence”, a manifestation of God (everything is God). The order of ideas is comparable to the order of bodies: all ideas come from God, since God is a thinking reality; in a similar way, bodies come from God, since God is an extended reality.
Thus, here we encounter a perfect parallelism consisting in coincidence, since we are talking about the same reality, considered in two different aspects: “The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things.” Ideas and things are nothing more than two different aspects of a single substance (God). Every idea inevitably has a corporeal correspondence, just as every event inevitably has a corresponding idea. This is how Spinoza solves the difficulty of Descartes' philosophy - the problem of psychophysical interaction.
Spinoza's epistemology proceeds from Descartes' doctrine of innate ideas. Spinoza distinguishes three types of knowledge: empirical, rational and intuitive.
The first form is empirical, i.e. associated with sensory perception and images, which are always “messy and unclear.”
This form of knowledge, theoretically inadequate in comparison with subsequent forms, is nevertheless practically irreplaceable. Its "falsity" lies in its lack of clarity. Indeed, it is limited to special cases and does not convey the connections and relationships of causes, i.e. general order of Nature.
Knowledge of the second kind, called ratio (reason) by Spinoza, is strictly scientific knowledge. Rational knowledge establishes the causal chain in its necessity. Therefore, we are talking about one of the forms of adequate knowledge, even if it is not the most perfect.
The third type of knowledge received the name intuitive from Spinoza; it consists of seeing things as coming from God. Intuitive knowledge starts from an adequate idea of the attributes of God and comes to the idea of the essence of things. Intuitive knowledge reveals self-evident truths, and therefore does not even need the mediation of rational proof or reasoning.
These three types of knowledge differ in the degree of clarity and distinctness (from the lowest - in empirical knowledge to the highest - in intuitive knowledge).
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz(1646-1716).
Leibniz shares the epistemological principles of rationalism. If the empiricists argued that “There is nothing in the mind that was not previously in the feeling,” then Leibniz introduced a significant qualification to this statement: “There is nothing in the mind that was not previously in the feeling, except the mind itself" This means that the soul is “innate to itself,” that the intellect and its activities precede experience. However, Leibniz does not fully agree with Descartes' doctrine of innate ideas. According to Leibniz, actual knowledge is not innate, but what can be called potential knowledge is innate, just as the figure outlined by the veins of marble is contained in the marble long before they are discovered when processing it.
Leibniz distinguishes two types of truths: truths of reason And truth of fact. By the truths of reason are those whose opposite is logically inconceivable. This is a set of truths based on the principle of identity, the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle. The peculiarity of truths of this kind is their universality and necessity. According to Leibniz, the truths of reason include the principles of logic, mathematics, as well as the rules of goodness and justice.
Truths of fact- these are empirical, devoid of necessity, i.e. the opposite of them is logically conceivable. For example, it is a truth of fact that I am sitting, but it does not seem necessary, since the opposite, that I am standing up, is not at all impossible. Consequently, truths of fact might not exist; nevertheless, since they exist, they have certain reasons for their existence.
If the principles of Aristotelian logic (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle) are sufficient to find the truths of reason, then the truths of fact also need principle of "sufficient reason", according to to which every event that actually occurs has a sufficient basis.
Originally solved by Leibniz and problem of substance. In solving the problem of substance, Descartes proceeded from dualism, and Spinoza from monism. Leibniz takes the position pluralism, arguing that there is an infinite number of substances. Leibniz calls these substances monads(from Greek monas - unit).
Each monad is an elementary immaterial principle, “ center of power». Each the monad has the ability to act (energy, force) and the ability to perceive (representation). Monads differ from each other in the degree of actualization (implementation) of these abilities.
Leibniz introduces a distinction between simple perception and conscious perception ( apperception).
Apperception(from Latin ad - to and perceptio - perception), the concept of philosophy and psychology of the New Age, a clear and conscious perception of any impression, sensation, etc.; introduced by Leibniz in contrast to unconscious perception.
Thus, all monads have perception, but only some of them have perception in the form of consciousness, understanding.
The world (being), in Leibniz's understanding, is a hierarchical system. The lowest (widest) stage (level) of being consists of monads, in which the abilities for action and perception are minimally expressed (actualized). This level of being is inorganic nature (minerals). At each subsequent level of existence, the abilities of monads manifest themselves to an ever greater extent. Next, in ascending order, are: plants; animals; Human. The top of the hierarchy of being is the monad, whose abilities (power and perception) are maximized. Leibniz calls this monad God. God (the supreme monad) is the pinnacle of existence, its ordering principle. The consciousness of God contains all possible options for the structure of existence, of which God realizes (implements) the best (optimal). Therefore, in the world there is pre-established harmony. On this basis, Leibniz calls our world the best of all possible worlds.