True traditionally understood as correspondence of thoughts and statements to reality. This concept of truth is called classical and goes back to the ideas of ancient Greek philosophers and. Here are their statements on this matter:
Plato: He who speaks of things in accordance with what they are speaks the truth, but he who speaks of them differently lies. Aristotle: To say of a being that it does not exist, or of a non-existent that it is, is to speak falsely; and to say that what exists is and what does not exist means to say what is true.
Polish-American logician and mathematician Alfred Tarski (1902-1984) expressed the classical formula of truth this way: The statement “P is C” is true if P is C. For example, the statement “Gold is a metal” is true if gold really is a metal. Thus, truth and falsity are characteristics of our thoughts and statements about reality and are impossible outside of human cognitive activity.
Relative and absolute truths
Relative truth- this is knowledge that approximately and limitedly reproduces reality.
Absolute truth- this is complete, exhaustive knowledge of reality that cannot be refuted.
Development is characterized by the desire for absolute truth as an ideal, but the final achievement of this ideal is impossible. Reality cannot be completely exhausted, and with each new discovery new questions arise. In addition, the unattainability of absolute truth is due to the imperfection of the means of knowledge available to man. At the same time, each discovery is simultaneously a step towards absolute truth: in any relative truth there is some part of the absolute truth.
The statement of the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus (5th century BC) “the world consists of atoms” contains a moment of absolute truth, but in general, the truth of Democritus is not absolute, since it does not exhaust reality. Modern ideas about the microcosm and elementary particles are more accurate, however, they do not exhaust reality as a whole. Each such truth contains elements of both relative and absolute truth.
Approaches according to which truth is only relative lead to relativism if it is believed that it is only absolute, then dogmatism.
Absolute truth in its broadest sense must not be confused with eternal or banal truths, such as “Socrates is a man” or “The speed of light in a vacuum is 300 thousand km/s.” Eternal truths are absolute only in relation to specific facts, and for more essential provisions, for example for scientific laws, and even more so for complex systems and reality in general, there are no complete and exhaustive truths.
In Russian, in addition to the concept of “truth”, the concept is also used "Truth", which is much broader in its meaning: truth is the combination of objective truth and moral justice, the highest ideal not only for scientific knowledge, but also for human behavior. As V.I. Dal said, truth is “truth in practice, truth in good.”
Lies and deception
Lies and deception act as the opposite of truth and indicate a discrepancy between judgment and reality. The difference between them lies in the fact of intentionality. So, delusion there is an unintentional discrepancy between judgments and reality, and lie - deliberately elevating misconceptions into truth.
The search for truth can thus be understood as a process constant struggle against lies and delusion.
Relative truth - This is knowledge that approximately and limitedly reproduces reality.
Absolute truth- this is complete, exhaustive knowledge of reality that cannot be refuted.
The development of science is characterized by the desire for absolute truth as an ideal, but the final achievement of this ideal is impossible. Reality cannot be completely exhausted, and with each new discovery new questions arise. In addition, the unattainability of absolute truth is due to the imperfection of the means of knowledge available to man. At the same time, each discovery is simultaneously a step towards absolute truth: in any relative truth there is some part of the absolute truth.
The statement of the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus (5th century BC) “the world consists of atoms” contains a moment of absolute truth, but in general, the truth of Democritus is not absolute, since it does not exhaust reality. Modern ideas about the microcosm and elementary particles are more accurate, however, they do not exhaust reality as a whole. Each such truth contains elements of both relative and absolute truth.
Approaches according to which truth is only relative lead to relativism if it is believed that it is only absolute, then dogmatism.
Absolute truth in its broadest sense must not be confused with eternal or banal truths, such as “Socrates is a man” or “The speed of light in a vacuum is 300 thousand km/s.” Eternal truths are absolute only in relation to specific facts, and for more essential provisions, for example for scientific laws, and even more so for complex systems and reality in general, there are no complete and exhaustive truths.
In Russian, in addition to the concept of “truth”, the concept is also used "Truth", which is much broader in its meaning: truth is the combination of objective truth and moral justice, the highest ideal not only for scientific knowledge, but also for human behavior. As V.I. Dal said, truth is “truth in practice, truth in good.”
Lies and deception
Lies and deception act as the opposite of truth and indicate a discrepancy between judgment and reality. The difference between them lies in the fact of intentionality. So, delusion there is an unintentional discrepancy between judgments and reality, and lie - deliberately elevating misconceptions into truth.
The search for truth can thus be understood as a process constant struggle against lies and delusion.
No. 39 The relationship between faith and reason.
FAITH AND REASON
Posted on January 3, 2012 by admin in WESTERN CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF THE MIDDLE AGES with No comments
Christian philosophy proclaimed the knowledge of God and the salvation of the human soul as the highest goal of human aspirations. This thesis was not disputed by anyone. But the question of how knowledge of God is achieved had different solutions. In most cases, the problem rested on the relationship between faith and reason.
The most important role of faith in knowing God is substantiated in biblical Revelation. Faith becomes not only the highest spiritual ability of the soul, so to speak, in an abstract sense, but also the highest cognitive ability. There were objective reasons for this. The Bible's authoritative statement of the importance of faith is only part of them. The other was connected with the biblical stories themselves, ideas and subsequent church dogmas. What they claimed did not fit into the framework of human experience, and sometimes even looked fantastic. To prove, for example, the origin of a woman from Adam’s rib was, to put it mildly, difficult. Therefore, the only way out was to refuse rational understanding of divine miracles (after all, they are supernatural!) and perceive them on faith. That is why Tertullian exclaims: “I believe, because it is absurd!” This thesis rejects the very need for a reasonable explanation of the truths of Revelation.
Here we must separate the wheat from the chaff. The fact is that the necessity and meaning of the faith that Christ points to often differ significantly from the reasons and meaning of the faith to which theologians appeal. Christ calls to believe in the truths that he has known objectively and reliably, since he is not able, due to certain reasons (the secrecy of spiritual teaching and the inability of the uninitiated to know it), to substantiate these truths. This is confirmed by the New Testament, which notes that the Teacher spoke to the crowd “only in parables,” which had to be believed, and “explained everything to the disciples in private” (Mark 4:10,11,33,34; Matt. 13:2 ,34,36; Luke 8:10).?
Hence the symbolism of the New Testament, i.e. presentation of truths not in plain text, but in symbols. Of course, the Old Testament was no less symbolic. The most enlightened theologians and philosophers understood this well. “Where can you find such an idiot,” wondered the greatest Christian thinker of the early Middle Ages, Origen (III century), “who would believe that God planted trees in Paradise, in Eden, like a tiller...?” Every person, he argues, should consider all these plots “as images with hidden meaning.” Nevertheless, despite the fact that medieval thinking was distinguished by considerable symbolism, many biblical provisions were interpreted almost literally. Consequently, faith in them in such cases did not come from knowledge, but just the opposite - from the inability to rationally explain this or that situation.
Thus, one of the medieval traditions (mainly during the periods of patristics and early scholasticism) denied the possibility of rational knowledge of God and Revelation. Moreover, rational knowledge, as well as education in spiritual quests, were considered harmful (Peter Damiani - XI century) or, at best, worthless and vain (Bernard of Clairvaux - XI-XII centuries). This view, characteristic of monastic mysticism and theology, many centuries later will lead to a separation of the spheres of influence of religion and scientific and philosophical thought, which will have both its positive (departure from church dogmatism and obscurantism) and negative (dehumanization of science, deviation from ethical principles, etc.) meaning.
Another tradition, characteristic of the scholastic stage, recognized certain rights for reason. The thesis of Anselm of Canterbury, compared to Tertullian’s principle, is already more constructive: “I believe and understand.” Thomas Aquinas (13th century) goes further and tries to reconcile faith and reason. On the one hand, this reconciliation again does not look in favor of reason and philosophy. The priority of faith remains. And philosophy, as with Damiani, is reduced to the position of the “handmaiden” of theology. On the other hand, Aquinas’s position contributes to a certain rehabilitation of reason, which scholastics no longer perceive as an enemy of faith. Reason, guided by the light of Revelation, allows a person to approach God. Thus, the truths of reason and the truths of faith do not contradict each other.
This postulate of Thomas Aquinas, being transferred to the modern cultural space, opens the way to a mutually important dialogue between religion and science. Moreover, some of the latest scientific trends substantiate the validity of the philosophical statements of Jesus Christ.
“ESOTERIC SYMBOLISM OF THE BIBLE AND THE SCHOOLASTIC METHOD OF PHILOSOPHY
“Esoteric” means internal, hidden, hidden. Many biblical works are based on the esoteric philosophical tradition and themselves retain a considerable amount of esotericism. The most important ideas of Revelation are expressed in symbolic language: the creation of the world and man, God the Father and God the Son, the Kingdom of God, heaven and hell and many others. An adequate understanding of these symbols presupposes the possession of a semantic key that transfers them from the sphere of fantastic religious mythology to the sphere of objective scientific philosophy. There is an opinion that not even all the direct disciples (apostles) of Christ fully owned this key. Adherents of esoteric philosophy claim that only to Mary Magdalene did Christ explain the most secret provisions of his teaching when he appeared to her within several years after his resurrection. All records, now almost lost, formed the basis of Gnostic philosophy. This is where their secret teaching comes from. And that's why they took the path of symbolic hermeneutics of the Bible.
But the knowledge of the Gnostics was recognized as heretical by the orthodox church. So she took a different path.
Instead of the unspoken principle “The Word is a Symbol” assumed by the Gnostics, scholastic philosophy gradually came to the affirmation of another unspoken principle: “The Word is reality.” In other words, it was assumed that the structure of true thought (and, as a consequence, words) always definitely and accurately reflects the structure of being (isomorphism). Scholasticism turns to the problems of logic - how concepts (“words”) relate to each other and what stands behind them. In this case, concepts are considered not as intermediaries between objective truth and its rational understanding, but as this truth itself.
The logical works of Boethius gave impetus to scholastic thinking. But he understands logic in a unique way. He is not interested in laws, not in rules of thinking, but in purely theological questions. For example: “How is it that the Trinity is one God and not three Deities?” The Gnostics solved them by revealing their symbolic meaning. But Boethius does not know how to do this. He immerses himself in the analysis of verbal constructions that express dogmatic truths.
Several centuries later, Boethius' method was developed and became widespread during the heyday and late scholastic periods. It is called the scholastic method. Its essence is the study of concepts and verbal and linguistic constructions in isolation from reality. With this perverted form of dialectic, medieval philosophers tried to rationally comprehend theological ideas. This led to empty word debates, hours-long discussions and multi-volume conceptual discussions, the objective substantive value of which was very small. Philosophical thought turned out to be not only the “handmaiden” of theology, it was separated from real life problems and forced to deal with the problems of sometimes dead, verbal forms. Such was the unsuccessful attempt to use conceptual dialectics in its scholastic interpretation as the key to the esoteric symbolism of Revelation.
During the Renaissance, scholasticism experienced opposition from mystical Christianity, revived Neoplatonism, and emerging secular philosophy and science. The symbolism of the Bible will remain a mystery to the general public for several centuries. It will be opened only towards the end of the 19th century.
REASON AND FAITH
REASON AND FAITH are the fundamental relationship between the two abilities of the human soul, which has been the most important philosophical and theological problem throughout the history of thought. "
In Antiquity, questions of faith were discussed in the context of knowledge, to substantiate the original self-evident axioms and principles or to characterize the sphere of opinion. The right to be whole was recognized for the Mind.
In the Middle Ages, with changes in ontological principles, the meaning and significance of faith changed. The methods of human existence now presupposed confession, prayer, instructions (conditions of faith), which were the path to the acquisition of eternal and unchanging truth.
We can distinguish three periods during which the angles of view on the problem of the relationship between reason and faith shifted. The first is before the 10th century, when reason and faith were thought of as relying on authority. The second - 10-12 centuries, when disciplinary diverging theology and philosophy raise the question of justifying an authoritative judgment by reason. "Sutius - 13-14 centuries, when we are talking about two truths: the truths of faith, which are accepted without proof and are justified by references to the Sacred Scripture, and the truths of reason that require proof.However, all three periods are characterized by common features of the Christian idea of the creation of the world by the Trinity God - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, i.e. Omnipotence, Word-Logos and Goodness. on the revelation of Holy Scripture. The recognition of a higher power, which creates the world through reason and good will, gave rise to the demand for faith, which, due to the incomprehensibility of this act of creation, could not be considered exclusively in a cognitive context. Recognition of the limitations of the human mind in comparison with Divine Wisdom meant that the mind participates. in the knowledge of God together with other, no less important abilities; a person was considered concentrated only when his intellect was concentrated in the heart, that is, when the mind became diligent and the heart prophetic. Man henceforth appeared not in two dimensions - soul and body, as in Antiquity, but in three - body, soul and spirit, where the spirit carried out the communion of man with God through goodness, thereby giving faith an ontological status, philosophy directed to the principles of being, from now on could not ignore faith and certainly had to join in the search for correspondence between reason and faith. Already in the 2nd century. in contrast to Gnosticism, which preached the impossibility of the unity of reason and faith, representatives of the Alexandrian catechetical school and, above all, Clement of Alexandria, proclaimed their harmony, believing that the harmony of faith and knowledge can make a person a conscious Christian. Belief in the good and reasonable foundation of the world is the beginning of philosophy. A properly directed mind helps to strengthen faith.
Faith presupposes the existence of indefinable principles (Light, Reason, Beauty, Life, Good, Wisdom, Omnipotence, One, Thought, Love), which can be witnessed or contemplated, as well as the transformation of the entire human being, aware of its contact with God, the enlightener person. This inner light overshadows philosophy itself. In this sense, the philosophical mind goes into voluntary slavery to religion. Philosophy is seen as the handmaiden of theology.
Tertullian focused on faith, which lies at the basis of existence, because he considered the very name of Christ to be the object of faith, which, in his opinion, comes from “anointing” or “pleasantness” and “kindness.” The meaning of this name refers, therefore, to the foundation of being (which is Kindness) as an unshakable principle; and to the originality of being, the path to which is cleared by communion and anointing. Attention to the idea of a name is connected with the idea of creation according to the Word, which at the same time is both a deed and a witness to the deed through the name. The name as the “last word”, having survived the vicissitudes of pronouncing, thinking, collapsing, becomes an object of faith. The name is evidence of a tradition that cannot be fiction, for fiction is peculiar to one person; it is a truth accessible to all and existing for all. Tradition as a universal is the principle of trust, which is always ready for verification, which is actually faith. That which is not ready for testing is a superstition unworthy of a Christian.
The guardian of continuity is the soul, “simple, uneducated, rude.” This soul is not a Christian, since Christians are not born, but it has reasons to become a Christian, arising 1) from the unreflected use of words of ordinary language (“God is good”, “God gave, God has taken”, “God will give”, “God will judge”) ”, etc.), into which a person is immersed from birth, which makes him actually a man, that is, an inexperienced speaker of the name of God; 2) from the coordination of this simplicity with sacred institutions. The soul is sacralized by virtue of its nature, close to God as the first essence. Primacy allows us to judge the authority of the soul. Since its knowledge is received from God, the soul is a prophetess, an interpreter of signs, a seer of events. It is the first stage of God-given knowledge. On this basis, Tertullian builds a unique ontology of knowledge: “the soul is older than the letter, the word is older than the book, and feeling is older than style, and man himself is older than the philosopher and the poet.” The soul “speaks” in any composition; since she speaks in it, who is by nature close to God, then “it is necessary to trust your own writings” (Tertullian. Selected works. M., 1994, p. 88), especially the Divine writings, for chronologically they are older than any other writing . With such a hierarchy of knowledge (God - nature - soul, which intuitively, which is faith, contains wisdom in a compressed form), the priority of Jerusalem over Athens is natural, that is, the priority of “simplicity of heart” over stoic, platonic and dialectical reasoning.
The philosophical task of Tertullian, who lived in an era when Christianity had not yet been consolidated, was the discovery of a faith based on the idea of creation. A different task faced Augustine, who lived in the period of established Christian dogmas: the emphasis was on the mutual basis of reason and faith, in particular in the prayerful beginning of his Confessions: “Let me, Lord, know and comprehend whether to begin by calling to You, or in order to praise You; whether it is necessary to first know You or call upon You. But who will call to You without knowing You?.. Or in order to know You, one must “call to You”? An ignorant person can call not to You, but to someone else. I will seek You, Lord, calling on You, and I will call on You, believing in You, for this has been preached to us” (Confession. M., 1989, p. 53). We are talking here about a consistent understanding of God through reason and faith: “I believe in order to understand, and I understand in order to believe.” Understanding is the reward of faith - Augustine’s main thought: “A person must be reasonable in order to want to seek God” (“On the Trinity”). Faith for him is indistinguishable from authority. Authority and reason are two principles that attract a person to knowledge under the condition of personal transformation.
John Scott Eriugena separates the concepts of faith and authority: authority is born from true reason and is the name of the bearer of this reason, while faith is the correctness of reason and in this sense reason itself, “true religion”, he identifies with “true philosophy”.
The second period is associated with the beginning of the disciplinary separation of the functions of philosophy and theology, which occurred at the time of the emergence of scholasticism. The development of the technique of logical research, the removal of logic beyond the limits of grammar, associated with the works of Anselm of Canterbury, Gilbert of Porreta, Peter Abelard, led to the fact that the demonstration of the order of analogies of thinking was replaced by a system of proofs of the existence of God, which served as a formal basis for the autonomization of reason. It became necessary to prove religious truths by rational means. Anselm of Canterbury presented the first proof of the existence of God. In the “Monologion” he gave 4 a posteriori proofs (the first comes from the premise that everything tends towards good; there are many good things, but only one gives rise to others; the second - from the idea of a non-spatial magnitude along the vertical, where there is a peak, in relation to which everything else will be inferior; the third - from being as a whole, the fourth - from the stages of perfection: the highest perfection crowns the hierarchy); in “Proslogium” - a priori (ontological or simultaneous) proof: from the analysis of thinking about God, the inevitability of his existence follows. Reason here begins to act not just in the mode of faith, it articulates its own positions, different from faith, logically verifying the fundamental principles of religion. And although ultimately their principles coincide, there are attempts to separate reason and faith. This was expressed most clearly in Peter Abelard’s treatise “Yes and No,” where the opposing statements of different authorities on the same religious issue were brought together: the coordination of human freedom and Divine predestination, the relationship between the two (Divine and human) natures of Christ, human responsibility in context of Divine omniscience, unity and trinity of God. And although both Anselm and Abelard still repeat Augustine’s formula “I understand in order to believe, and I believe in order to understand,” the tendency towards its internal rupture, opening up the possibility of philosophizing outside of faith, is obvious.
In the 12th century There already exist such diversely oriented philosophical schools as Shargr, Saint-Vikgor, Lansk, Paris. The first explored the problems of mechanical-mathematical cosmology, the laws of which applied to the world of living nature, considered as the Book of Nature (Theodoric and Bernard of Chartres, Gilbert of Porretan). The Saint-Vicgor school was an example of speculative philosophy. lyro Saint-Victorian in “Didaskalikon” compiled a pyramid of sciences with hierarchical division, subordination, distinguishing them from the “seven liberal arts”. The Lanskaya school developed issues of ethics, which were originally part of theology. Abelard's secular school explored, in line with meditative dialectics, the problems of speech utterance, ethics and theology as a rational discipline.
The rational function of philosophy is emphasized in the treatises of John of Salisbury, who wrote that he preferred to doubt with academics than to invent definitions for what is hidden and obscure. However, although a person strives to comprehend with his mind everything available to him, he must have the courage to admit the existence of problems that exceed the capabilities of his intellect.
In arose in the 13th century. The University of Paris, a free association of masters and students, was officially allowed to discuss issues of faith, which until then had been the responsibility of church hierarchs. There, for the first time, faculties of theology and philosophy began to exist autonomously. Almost simultaneously with the emergence of universities, monastic orders of Franciscans and Dominicans were created, which actively participated in scientific disputes. Philosophical treatises become the subject of widespread discussion. The scope of the study includes the ideas of Avicenna (Ibn Sana) and Averroes (Ibn Rushd), the Aristotelian originals of “Physics” and “Metaphysics”, which significantly transformed the intellectual image of the world. The main subjects of discussion were questions about the eternity of the world, the primacy of philosophy and the unity of intellect. According to Averroes and his followers at the University of Paris, primarily Siger of Brabang, there is only one truth, it is reasonable, therefore, in case of discrepancies between philosophy and theology in the interpretation of essential principles, one must take the side of philosophy. Truth also testifies to the eternity of the world and the unity of the intellect. The dispassionate, isolated, universal intellect (Averroes calls it possible) has an immortality, which the individual intellect, which receives energy from the Divine mind, lacks. The latter influences the former through fantasy, imagination, and sensory sensations, due to which forms of individual cognition are created.
The thesis about the immortality of the only possible, universal mind, self-sufficient and not part of the individual soul, came into conflict with the Christian dogma of the personal immortality of man. The idea of the disintegration of everything individual upon death negated the question of a person’s personal responsibility for his actions. Therefore, again, the problem of the foundations of reason and faith becomes the main focus - and this is the third period. Thomas of Aquia, criticizing the Averroists for the idea of the intellect as a substance “in its being separated from the body” and “in no way united with it as a form,” wrote “that the above-mentioned position is an error that opposes the truth of the Christian faith; this may seem quite clear to anyone. But deprive people of diversity in relation to the intellect, which alone of all parts of the soul is indestructible and immortal, and it will follow that after death nothing but a single intellectual substance will remain from human souls; and, thus, there will be no distribution of rewards or retribution, and any difference between them will be erased” (Thomas Aquinas. On the unity of the intellect against the Averroists. - In the book: Good and Truth: classical and non-classical regulatives. M., 1998, pp. 192-193). The five paths to God, pointing to his existence, together are the paths leading to the unity of faith and reason.
Considering the problem of the autonomy of philosophy, Bonaventure believes that a person, even if he is capable of knowing nature and metaphysics, can fall into error outside the light of faith. Therefore, according to Bonaventure, who follows Augustine in this matter, it is necessary to distinguish reason guided by faith, the goal of which is “to seek God,” from self-sufficient reason, which in fact can only be an instrument of theology, since it writes down what faith prescribes.
John Dutus Scotus rejects Thomist attitudes towards the reconciliation of faith and reason, believing that philosophy and theology have different objects and methodology. Unlike philosophy, which presents methods of proof and demonstration, theology offers a path of persuasion, the former based on the logic of the natural, the latter on the logic of the supernatural and revelation. If the Averroists promote the replacement of theology with philosophy, then the Thomists and Augustinians promote the opposite. To avoid such substitution, Duns Scotus proposes to criticize theological and philosophical concepts in order to develop a new philosophical discourse. The principle of equatoriality must be replaced by the principle of uniqueness of being. This principle assumed “merely simple concepts”, not identified with others and unambiguous. The concept of existence was applied to God, which was neutral regarding the created and the uncreated. Consequently, it met the requirements of simplicity and unambiguity. Duns Scotus called this concept imperfect. It is the first object of the intellect and helps to understand, through the study of modes of being, that the cause of things is beyond the world of things, and this is proof of the existence of God.
William Oxnam believed that the mediation of reason and faith by philosophical or theological concepts is futile, since the levels of rationality, based on the logical eye
visibility, and faith, based on morality and not a consequence of obvious conclusions, are asymmetrical. Therefore, the spheres of reason and faith do not intersect.
The theory of the duality of truth led not only to the disciplinary separation of philosophy and theology, but also to the almost complete disappearance of such a movement as conceptualism (until the modern era). However, the phenomenon of the “believing mind” did not disappear in subsequent times, becoming either a part of the universal basis of thinking, or the basis of individual disciplines, primarily theology.
In modern times, attempts at the philosophical return of the “living God” as opposed to the infinitely extended and external world of God the Object were undertaken by B. Pascal. His religious philosophy was a unique reaction to the emerging scientific methodological approach to thinking. The mind and heart, according to Pascal, are “the gates through which the worldview creeps into the soul” and to which correspond natural, clear and mutually valid principles - understanding and will (Pascal B. Pensées. R., 1852, p. 32). The order of the mind is beginnings and demonstrations, the order of the heart is love. These fundamental principles are not subject to proof, because “man does not have such natural knowledge that would precede these concepts and would surpass them in clarity” (ibid., p. 21), and Pascal considers such a lack of evidence “not a defect, but rather a perfection” (ibid., p. 20). Neither the immensity of space, nor the immensity of time, number or movement, neither the immeasurably small nor the immeasurably great, can be substantiated, “but only through confident reasoning do both acquire the utmost natural clarity, which convinces the mind much more powerfully than any speech” (ibid., p. 20). The foundations of the heart and mind, according to Pascal, are the features of human nature, which in fact is “the union of two natures” - physical and Divine. Bi-nature determines human freedom, since it is impossible to imagine the unfreedom of that which has the Divine essence. Focusing on human existence with its natural oddities, which forced the introduction of such concepts as Horror, Melancholy, Fear, and on the application of the method of experimental sciences to questions of faith, Pascal, of course, belongs to the founders of new thinking, although he reveals a medieval-religious reaction to the logicism and methodologism of the emerging scientific trend, which allows for the idea of a Creator only in order to set the world in motion. Opposing all philosophy, Pascal believes theology to be the “concentration of all truths,” and philosophy to be a mediating discipline that “imperceptibly leads” to it.
The Enlightenment turned reason into the original principle, identifying faith with prejudice and error. I. Kant, trying to limit faith, along with liturgical religion, presupposes the existence of faith of reason (“religion within the limits of reason alone”) as pure faith in goodness, moral laws, love and duty. F. V. I. Schelling, starting with the affirmation of the religion of reason, at the end of his life came to the affirmation of the philosophy of revelation and theosophy as the highest development of religious faith. For G.V.F. For Hegel, the ascent from the abstract to the concrete is the way of introducing a person to faith and the truths of religion, which led him from criticizing Christianity and affirming “positive religion” to the rationalization of the Christian faith.
A. Schopenhauer, speaking out against Hegelian panlogism, attached great importance to the idea of a believing mind, considering science not so much a cognitive activity as a function of the will. It is precisely this distinction that determines his idea that “true virtue and holiness of thoughts have their primary source not in deliberate arbitrariness (deeds), but in knowledge (faith)” (The world as will and idea. - Collected works in 5 vols., t. 1. M., 1992, p. 374). Kierkegaard, speaking against any philosophical system capable of “containing the entire content of faith in the form of a concept,” considers himself a “free creator” who does not promise or create any system, since only in the free study of the basic categories, the relationship between the ethical and the religious, the “teleological eliminating” ethics, it is possible to discover the paradox of faith and “how we enter faith or how faith enters us” (Kierkegaard S. Fear and Trembling. M-, 1993, pp. 16-17).
The problem of reason and faith is the most important for Christian philosophers and theologians, both Catholic - Augustinians, neo-Thomists (E. Gilson, J. Maritain), Jesuits (F. C. Copleston), and Protestants (P. Tillich). Their studies emphasize the theological context of medieval philosophy, although reason and faith are largely divorced in their analysis of the issues. But the very introduction of the theological context into the study of medieval philosophy significantly expanded the scope of philosophy itself, since regardless of the approaches (theological or logical), we are talking about addressing topics that arise in any philosophy as “eternal”. This approach contributed to the detailed study of medieval philosophy, which was until the beginning of the 20th century. in an abandoned state, as evidenced by the fundamental research of Gilson, Maritain, and Copleston. Tillich places theological reason within the field of culture, believing that both are based on ideas of personalism, and linking the revival of “living religion” with the concept of a personal God as a symbol indicating that “the center of our personality is perceived through the manifestation of an unattainable ground and the abyss of being” (Theology of Culture. M., 1995, p. 332).
The problem of the believing mind (the term belongs to S. Khomyakov) is at the center of attention of Russian religious philosophy. In Russian philosophical thought (the works of V. S. Solovyov, V. Ya. Nesmelov, D. Shest, N. A. Berdyaev, P. A. Florensky, G. V. Florovsky, etc.), faith was the fundamental basis of all knowledge. The emphasis was placed precisely on faith, since the basis of such consciousness was dissatisfaction with secular, non-religious culture, social and state hostility towards the individual, and the superficial nature of spiritual values. Such differences from the Western European understanding of the leading role of reason in knowledge were caused not only by criticism of the idea of classical reason, but also by a general belittlement of the role of reason, which, on the one hand, strengthened the position of faith, and on the other, led to occultism and theosophical, anthroposophical and primitive mysticism. In the 2nd half. In the 20th century, however, philosophical trends appeared that defended not just the importance of reason for modern thinking, but showed the weakening of the position of explaining the world, bypassing rationality as the most important cognitive ability of a person. These philosophical trends simultaneously showed the limitations of the natural-scientific, cognitive (scientific) mind of the New Age, and defended the ideas of neo-rationalism (G. Bachelard, I. Prigogine). J. Searle, analyzing Western European thinking, which he calls the Western rationalist tradition and developing the ideas of the cognitive mind in its two types (the theory
tical reason and practical reason), considers rational faith to belong not to disciplinarity, but to the property of one of the types of cognitive reason, namely theoretical (J. Searle. Rationality and realism: what is at stake? - “The Way”, 1994, No. 6, p. 203 ).
In the concept of dialogue of cultures by V. S. Bibler, a single definition of reason for all eras is generally questioned. “At one point, the ancient, medieval, and modern European spiritual spectra concentrate and mutually determine each other, revealing simultaneous (actually cultural) existence” (Bibler V.S. From scientific teaching to the logic of culture. Two philosophical introductions to the 21st century. M., 1991, p. .263). Turning to the original principles of philosophy is a condition for human self-determination. The believing mind, participating in a single universal subject, turns out to be one of the forms of this self-determination.
No. 40 Social philosophy.
The truth of a thought or idea is based on how much it corresponds to objective reality, how much it corresponds to practice.
“This rope will not support 16 kg. - No, it will ...” no matter how much we argue, we will find out whose opinion is most true only after we hang a weight on the rope and try to lift it.
Philosophy distinguishes between concrete and abstract, relative and absolute truth. Relative truth is incomplete, often even inaccurate knowledge about an object or phenomenon. Usually it corresponds to a certain level of development of society, the instrumental and research base that it has. Relative truth is also a moment of our limited knowledge of the world, the approximate and imperfection of our knowledge, this is knowledge that depends on historical conditions, the time and place of its receipt.
Any truth, any knowledge that we use in practice is relative. Any, even the simplest object, has an infinite variety of properties, an infinite number of relationships.
Let's take our example. The rope supports the weight, which is stamped “16 kilograms”. This is a relative truth, reflecting one, but not the main and by no means the only property of the rope. What material is it made of? What is the chemical composition of this material? Who, when and where produced this material? How else can this material be used? We can formulate hundreds of questions about this simple subject, but even if we answer them, we will not know EVERYTHING about it.
Relative truth is true as long as it meets the practical needs of a person. For a long time, the postulate about a flat Earth and the Sun revolving around it was true for man, but only as long as this idea met the needs for navigation of ships, which did not leave sight of the shore when sailing.
In addition, relative truth must correspond to human needs. The primitive potter did not need to know the firing temperature of the clay in degrees - he successfully determined it by eye; the surgeon did not need to know the number of relatives of the patient, and the teacher did not need to know the shoe size of the student.
Absolute truth is an adequate reflection by the subject who knows of the cognizable object, its representation as what it really is, regardless of the level of human knowledge and his opinion about this object. Here a contradiction immediately arises - any human knowledge cannot be independent of man, precisely because it is human. Absolute truth is also an understanding of the infinity of the world, the limits to which human knowledge strives. The concept of “infinity” is easily used by mathematicians and physicists, but imagining and seeing infinity is not given to the human mind. Absolute truth is also comprehensive, reliable, verified knowledge that cannot be refuted. For a long time, the concept of the indivisibility of the atom was the basis of the worldview. The word itself is translated as “indivisible.” Today we cannot be sure that tomorrow any truth that seems indisputable today will not be rejected.
The main difference between relative and absolute truth is the completeness and adequacy of the reflection of reality. Truth is always relative and concrete. “A person’s heart is on the left side of his chest” is a relative truth; a person has many other properties and organs, but it is not specific, that is, it cannot be a universal truth - there are people whose heart is located on the right. 2+2 is a truth in arithmetic, but two people + two people can be a team, a gang, or equal to a number greater than 4 if they are two married couples. 2 units of weight + 2 units of weight of uranium may not mean 4 units of weight, but a nuclear reaction. Mathematics and physics, and any exact sciences, use abstract truths. “The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the legs,” and it does not matter where the triangle is drawn - on the ground or on the human body, what color, size it is, etc.
Even seemingly absolute moral truths often turn out to be relative. The truth about the need for respect for parents is so universally accepted - from the biblical commandments to all world literature, but when Miklouho-Maclay tried to convince the wild islanders of Oceania who were eating their parents that this was unacceptable, they gave him an argument that was undeniable from their point of view; “We would rather eat them and maintain our lives and the lives of our children than be eaten by worms.” I'm not talking about such a moral imperative as respect for the life of another person, which is completely forgotten during war; moreover, it degenerates into its opposite.
Human knowledge is an endless process of movement from relative to absolute truth. At each stage, truth, being relative, still remains true - it meets the needs of a person, the level of development of his tools and production in general, and does not contradict the reality that he observes. That’s when this contradiction of objective reality occurs - the search for a new truth, closer to the absolute, begins. In every relative truth there is a piece of absolute truth - the idea that the Earth is flat made it possible to draw maps and make long journeys. With the development of knowledge, the share of absolute truth in relative truth increases, but will never reach 100%. Many believe that absolute truth is Revelation and is possessed only by the Omniscient and Almighty God.
Attempts to elevate relative truth to the rank of absolute are always a ban on freedom of thought and even on specific scientific research, just as cybernetics and genetics were banned in the USSR, just as the church at one time condemned any scientific search and refuted any discovery because The Bible already contains absolute truth. When craters were discovered on the Moon, one of the church ideologists simply stated about this: “This is not written in the Bible, therefore it cannot be.”
In general, the elevation of relative truth to absolute is characteristic of dictatorial authoritarian regimes, which have always hampered the development of science, as well as of any religion. A person does not have to search for the truth - everything is said in the Holy Scriptures. Any object or phenomenon has an exhaustive explanation - “This is so because the Lord created (desired) it. At one time, Clive Lewis formulated this well: “If you want to know everything, turn to God, if you are interested in learning, turn to science.”
Understanding the relativity of any truth does not disappoint in knowledge, but stimulates researchers to search.
Concept of truth- complex and contradictory. Different philosophers and different religions have their own. The first definition of truth was given by Aristotle, and it became generally accepted: truth is the unity of thinking and being. Let me decipher it: if you think about something, and your thoughts correspond to reality, then it is the truth.
In everyday life, truth is synonymous with truth. “Truth is in wine,” said Pliny the Elder, meaning that under the influence of a certain amount of wine a person begins to tell the truth. In fact, these concepts are somewhat different. Truth and Truth- both reflect reality, but truth is more of a logical concept, and truth is a sensual concept. Now comes the moment of pride in our native Russian language. In most European countries, these two concepts are not distinguished; they have one word (“truth”, “vérité”, “wahrheit”). Let's open the Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language by V. Dahl: “Truth is ... everything that is true, genuine, accurate, fair, that is; ...truth: truthfulness, fairness, justice, rightness.” So, we can conclude that truth is a morally valuable truth (“We will win, truth is with us”).
Theories of truth.
As already mentioned, there are many theories, depending on philosophical schools and religions. Let's look at the main theories of truth:
- Empirical: Truth is all knowledge based on the accumulated experience of mankind. Author - Francis Bacon.
- Sensualistic(Hume): truth can only be known sensitively, by sensation, perception, contemplation.
- Rationalistic(Descartes): all truth is already contained in the human mind, from where it must be extracted.
- Agnostic(Kant): truth is unrecognizable in itself (“the thing in itself”).
- Skeptical(Montaigne): nothing is true, man is not capable of obtaining any reliable knowledge about the world.
Criteria of truth.
Criteria of truth- these are the parameters that help distinguish truth from lies or misconceptions.
- Compliance with logical laws.
- Compliance with previously discovered and proven laws and theorems of science.
- Simplicity, general accessibility of the formulation.
- Compliance with fundamental laws and axioms.
- Paradoxical.
- Practice.
In modern world practice(as the totality of experience accumulated over generations, the results of various experiments and the results of material production) is the first most important criterion of truth.
Types of truth.
Types of truth- a classification invented by some authors of school textbooks on philosophy, based on their desire to classify everything, sort it into shelves and make it publicly available. This is my personal, subjective opinion, which appeared after studying many sources. There is only one truth. Breaking it down into types is stupid and contradicts the theory of any philosophical school or religious teaching. However, truth has different Aspects(what some consider to be "species"). Let's look at them.
Aspects of truth.
We open almost any cheat sheet site created to help pass the Unified State Exam in philosophy and social studies in the “Truth” section, and what do we see? Three main aspects of truth will be highlighted: objective (that which does not depend on a person), absolute (proven by science, or an axiom) and relative (truth from only one side). The definitions are correct, but the consideration of these aspects is extremely superficial. If not - amateurish.
I would highlight (based on the ideas of Kant and Descartes, philosophy and religion, etc.) four aspects. These aspects should be divided into two categories, not lumped together. So:
- Criteria of subjectivity-objectivity.
Objective truth is objective in its essence and does not depend on a person: the Moon revolves around the Earth, and we cannot influence this fact, but we can make it an object of study.
Subjective truth depends on the subject, that is, we explore the Moon and are the subject, but if we did not exist, then there would be neither subjective nor objective truth. This truth directly depends on the objective.
The subject and object of truth are interconnected. It turns out that subjectivity and objectivity are facets of the same truth.
- Criteria for absoluteness and relativity.
Absolute truth- a truth proven by science and beyond doubt. For example, a molecule is made up of atoms.
Relative truth- something that is true in a certain period of history or from a certain point of view. Until the end of the 19th century, the atom was considered the smallest indivisible part of matter, and this was true until scientists discovered protons, neutrons and electrons. And at that moment the truth changed. And then scientists discovered that protons and neutrons consist of quarks. I don’t think I need to continue any further. It turns out that relative truth was absolute for some period of time. As the creators of The X-Files convinced us, the Truth is out there. And yet where?
Let me give you another example. Having seen a photograph of the Cheops pyramid from a satellite from a certain angle, one can say that it is a square. And a photo taken at a certain angle from the surface of the Earth will convince you that this is a triangle. In fact, it is a pyramid. But from the point of view of two-dimensional geometry (planimetry), the first two statements are true.
Thus, it turns out that absolute and relative truth are as interconnected as subjective-objective. Finally, we can draw a conclusion. Truth has no types, it is one, but it has aspects, that is, what is true from different angles of consideration.
Truth is a complex concept, which at the same time remains united and indivisible. Both the study and understanding of this term at this stage by man has not yet been completed.
The belief that "I'm right and you're wrong" outside the world of simple and verifiable facts is a dangerous thing. It is dangerous not only in personal relationships, but also in interactions between peoples, tribes, religions, etc.
But if the conviction “I am right and you are wrong” is one of the ways of self-strengthening the ego, if you make yourself right and the other wrong, that is, you fall into a state of mental disorder that perpetuates disunity and a state of conflict between people, is it then possible to talk about such things as good or bad behavior, action or belief? And isn’t this a moral relativity, in which some Christian movements see the great evil of our time?
The history of Christianity provides an excellent example of how the belief that you are the only possessor of truth, in other words, rightness, can distort your actions and behavior and lead them to the point of madness. For centuries, torturing and burning alive those whose opinions diverged even slightly from Christian doctrine or narrow interpretations of scripture (“Truth”) was considered just cause because the victims were “wrong.” They were so wrong that they had to be killed. Truth was placed above human life. And what kind of Truth was this? It was some kind of fairy tale that you have to believe in; that is, a tangle of thoughts.
Among the million people killed on the orders of the crazy dictator Pol Pot were all those who wore glasses. Why? For him, the Marxist interpretation of history was the absolute truth, and, according to his version, the owners of the glasses belonged to the educated class, the bourgeoisie, the exploiters of the peasants. They had to be destroyed to make way for a new social order. His truth was also a ball of thoughts.
The Catholic and other churches are essentially right in considering relativism - the view that there is no absolute truth capable of guiding human behavior - one of the evils of our time; but you will not find absolute truth if you look where it does not exist: in doctrines, ideologies, rulebooks or past experiences. What do they have in common? They are all created from thoughts. A thought can, at best, point to the truth, but it itself is never the truth. is. That's why Buddhists say, "A finger pointing to the moon is not the moon." All religions are equally false and equally true depending on who uses them. You can put them at the service of the ego, or you can put them at the service of the Truth. If you believe that only your religion is the Truth, then you have put it in the service of the ego. Religion used in this way becomes an ideology, and, in addition to creating a sense of imaginary superiority, divides people and causes conflict between them. If a religion serves the Truth, then its teachings are a road guide or a map left by awakened people to help you spiritually awaken, in other words, to help you free yourself from identification with form.
There is only one absolute Truth, which is the source of all others. When you find it, your actions are aligned with it. Can this Truth be expressed in words? Yes, but words, of course, are not the Truth. Words only point to it.
This Truth is inseparable from who you are. Yes - you yourself There is this Truth. If you look for it somewhere else, you will be deceived every time. Truth is the Being that you yourself are. Jesus was trying to communicate exactly this when he said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). These words of Jesus, if understood correctly, are one of the most powerful and direct pointers to Truth. If misinterpreted, they become a serious obstacle. Jesus speaks from deep within I am- from that factual identification which is in reality the essence of every man and woman, the essence of every form of life. He talks about the life that you yourself are. Some Christian mystics called it this way - Christ within; Buddhists call it Buddha nature, Hindus call it Atman, constantly abiding in God. When you are in touch with this inner dimension - and being in touch with it is your natural state, not some supernatural achievement - all your actions and relationships will reflect oneness with the life that you feel deep within you. This is Love. Laws, commandments, rules and regulations are needed only by those who are cut off from the Truth within themselves - the Truth that they really are. Laws and commandments are designed to prevent the worst manifestations of the ego, but often they cannot do even that. “Love and do what you want,” said St. Augustine. Words cannot come closer to the Truth.
