George Berkeley ) "ideas" and "souls"(active, active, can be a cause). To avoid solipsism, he introduced a number of reservations into the teaching. Although things (that is, sums of “ideas”) exist only as objects of perception, the perceived subject is not alone in the world. God is a subject who cannot disappear, and therefore the world of things he created cannot disappear. Here's Berkeley David Hume skepticism impression ( perception: external experience - perception; internal - affects, desires, passions), and interpreted ideas (concepts) that arise on the basis of past experience as reflections of impressions. Hume's doctrine of causality is fundamental in his theory of knowledge. “There is no essence, no substance, no matter, no cause.” The objective existence of causality cannot be proven. The category of causality makes sense within the boundaries of cognitive psychology. The human mind, based on associations, contiguity and similarity, itself establishes causal connections between phenomena.
Subjective idealism of J. Berkeley. Skepticism of D. Hume
George Berkeley(1685 – 1753). His original point: “to exist is to be perceived.” From this point of view, he criticizes the existence of the concept of matter as the material basis of bodies and Locke’s teaching about two classes of qualities (primary qualities are also subjective ) . He recognized the existence of only spiritual existence, which he divided into "ideas"(the subjective qualities we perceive are passive, involuntary, do not depend on us) and "souls"(active, active, can be a cause).
To avoid solipsism, he introduced a number of reservations into the teaching. Although things (that is, sums of “ideas”) exist only as objects of perception, the perceived subject is not alone in the world. God is a subject who cannot disappear, and therefore the world of things he created cannot disappear. Here's Berkeley approaches objective idealism. We comprehend God empirically: our sensations are not perceptions of some mythical things, but perceptions (through the external world) of God himself. Berkeley's God is permanently revealed to man, present in every thing, or more precisely in every combination of sensations. The position of Neoplatonism with a pronounced pantheistic overtones.
David Hume(1711-1776) formulated the basic principles of new European agnosticism and is considered the predecessor of positivism. Names his philosophy skepticism because he denied not only any material substance, but also spiritual substance and the individual soul. Put the objects in place impression ( perception: external experience - perception; internal - affects, desires, passions), and interpreted ideas (concepts) that arise on the basis of past experience as reflections of impressions.
Hume's doctrine of causality is fundamental in his theory of knowledge. “There is no essence, no substance, no matter, no cause.” The objective existence of causality cannot be proven. The category of causality makes sense within the boundaries of cognitive psychology. The human mind, based on associations, contiguity and similarity, itself establishes causal connections between phenomena.
Berkeley and Hume are not interesting for their philosophical ideas (although they also said a “new word”), but they should be considered in the historical and philosophical part of the philosophy course because both of them not only continued the idealistic tradition in philosophy, but brought this tradition to its logical end. In addition, their ideas, to some extent, found their supporters in the philosophical quests of the 19th and even 20th centuries. Moreover, for a long time there was even an idea among Marxist philosophers that there were special trends in philosophy – “Berkeleanism” and “Humeanism”, when analytical work on the historical and philosophical heritage could be replaced with a resounding negative definition.
This teaching is subjective idealism. Having rejected the existence of matter, it recognizes the existence of only human consciousness, in which Berkeley distinguishes between “ideas” and “souls”. Ideas are qualities given in our subjective perception. Souls are perceiving, active immaterial subjects of spiritual activity. According to Berkeley, ideas are completely passive, but souls are active. He tries to prove that it does not follow from his teaching that things first appear only through perception, but that they disappear when perception ceases.
The thoughts of “trying the pen” apparently appeared in Hume’s youth, since he, at the age of 23, found himself in Paris and immediately sat down to write the “Treatise on Human Nature”, conceived in his homeland (fortunately, the spiritual atmosphere of Paris, which was then years as the intellectual capital of Europe, favored the young man’s ambitious aspirations to make a “philosophical name” for himself). The choice of topic is typical for the era of increased attention to the man of the New Time, although this was no longer a repetition of the attention of the Renaissance (the beauty and pride of nature, the highest creation of the Divine, etc.). This was the attention of the youth of the bourgeois era (to the mind, the active side, personal energy, knowledge, etc.). It would be fair to assume that the young man was not idle in Paris, since upon returning to England in 1737 he immediately began publishing what he had written.
During the period 1737–1740 Three books of the “Treatise” were published one after another, but the effect expected by the author did not work out: readers immediately noted the lengthiness in the reasoning, the literary and philosophical style of presentation, the unclear statement of the author’s goal of the “Treatise,” and the psychologism in the description of “human nature.” Without waiting for the release of the third part of his work, Hume thoroughly reworked it in 1739–1740, but the “rework” dragged on further, since Hume mastered self-criticism. As a result, the three books of the Treatise turned into three independent works. This is “An Inquiry Concerning Human Knowledge” (1748); "An Inquiry into the Principles of Morals" (1751); "An Inquiry into the Affects" (1757). In parallel, he worked on another problem, which was completed by 1757 and published in the same year in the form of a book entitled “The Natural History of Religion.”
Under shape understood as external expression of content, so internal method the relationship between the components of the content (in the latter case, the form is similar in essence structure).
Dialectics forms And content disclose the following provisions.
1. Unity forms And content. Any material object, process is a unity of form and content. Consequently, there is no formless content, just as there is no contentless form.
2. Controversy forms And content. Form And content– dialectical opposites. The relationship between them can be characterized:
but as harmony– correspondence of form to content, and the content of the form and, as a consequence of this, the optimal development of the subject;
b) how disharmony– inconsistency form to content and vice versa, in which deformations occur in the functioning and development of the subject;
c) how conflict – incompatibility form with content, and content with form, in which the object can no longer develop in its former quality.
Thus, subject development there is the unity and struggle of its opposite sides - form and content.
Contents there is a tendency towards constant change, form– trend don't change, stay the same. The counteraction to these trends is revealed in the contradiction between the new content and the old form. This contradiction in nature is resolved automatically, as it were, but in society a person must be ready to independently resolve it, looking for a form that matches the content.
3. Heterogeneity of mutual influence of form and content. Content in the process of its changes can change shape. Form maybe hold back or contribute development of content (if we are talking about external form) and change content, if changes occur in the internal form of the object (its structure).
4. Variability in the expression of content by form. The same content can be expressed in different forms. It is important to highlight here: forms that correspond to the content; inconsistent with the content and incompatible with the content. Different contents can be expressed in the same form.
Correlating categories "content" And "form" V epistemologically it should be assumed that since content refers to the inside of the object to that extent it is known through its manifestation outside, through form.
Studying forms becomes an important cognitive task, as it allows you to imagine development of any process How consistent change of its forms. Here it is important to have an idea of the variety of forms in which the process can take place, which forms correspond to a specific stage of development, which are optimal, and which will hinder development; about what are the prospects for the development of the process in one form or another. But no matter how important the study of forms is, we should not forget that we are studying form in connection with solving the problem of development optimization content.
57.Methodological and social aspects of the “man-technology” system.
The development of psychology can be viewed as the development of the concepts that form the framework of science. It is this idea that is the basis for theoretical psychological research. At the same time, the theoretical level is also associated with the explanation of mental phenomena. At the theoretical level, the mental, observed and perceived phenomenologically, becomes psychological.
Thus, any psychological theory can have two main sources:
Development and clarification, new understanding of concepts and categories;
An empirical, phenomenological layer that arises from the experience of interaction with mental reality.
The methodological level is, in our opinion, decisive in relation to both the empirical and the purely theoretical.
Methodology is the core of any science. Methodological principles are especially important in those areas that relate to socio-psychological phenomena, human consciousness and psyche. The significance of the methodology as a set of principles and methods for organizing the theoretical and practical activities of social psychologists increases with the use of intensive integrative psychotechnologies, which use altered states of consciousness (trance, extended, psychedelic) in their structure of interaction with clients.
It is the methodology that must answer the questions: - what is the object of self-improvement and therapy (problematic socio-psychological situation, crisis state of the individual, referent social environment, unconscious material of an individual biography, spiritual potential, transpersonal structures, integrity of mental reality, etc.);
How does the transformation of personality and group values correlate with the rigidity of the social environment (it is difficult to expect that during the time of working with a client in individual or group forms, something will change in the social relations of the individual).
How does a change in a quality or personality trait affect the system of other psychological properties of a person as a complex system;
What to take as the starting point for personal self-improvement and what is the vector of development.
Technology, based on modern science, has revolutionized transport; it has imperiously invaded our culture, life, and recreation. Nowadays there is no such major national economic problem, the solution of which would not be in one way or another connected with the development trends of the scientific and technological revolution. But this is not enough. It has an increasingly noticeable influence on politics, ideology, art, religion, and on a person’s worldview. Consideration of the “man – technology” problem is closely related to the definition of the very concept of technology.
The secret of technology is hidden in labor; its essence can only be understood in connection with the essence of labor. K. Marx defines labor as “a process in which a person, through his own activity, mediates, regulates and controls the exchange of substances between himself and nature” /1/. Participate in labor
Three components: a person, a means of labor and an object of labor. The instrument of labor plays the role of an intermediary between man (society) and the subject of labor (nature); this intermediate position of technology also determines the corresponding methodological approach to its consideration. In sociological analysis, its development should be correlated not only with the subject of labor, but also with the person. The natural strength of man, or, in other words, his own working organs, tools of labor from the very beginning form a single working system. “Labor, as F. Engels notes, begins with the manufacture of tools” /1/. Only in the unity of man and technology is work possible. This unity is based, firstly, on the fact that the purpose of the natural working organs of man and his artificial organs, i.e. tools of labor coincides in principle (both serve as means of transforming nature), and secondly, on the fact that they complement each other. First of all, man creates percussion and cutting instruments, since his natural cutting organs - teeth and nails - are least suited for processing the hard material of nature. Steam and then electric engines made it possible to greatly increase the driving energy of the human body and replace it as a motive force. Historically, technology is formed precisely as a complement to natural human labor organs, and not as their copy. However, not only technology complements and lengthens imperfect human organs in the process of labor, but man himself, to a certain extent, supplements the tools of labor with his hands, energy, nervous system, and brain. It complements them due to the fact that these tools themselves are too imperfect to automatically perform labor functions. It complements them just enough to make such functioning possible.
58.Aristotle “Politics”. Criticism of Plato. Aristotle on the three laws of formal logic.
Aristotle, relying on the results of Plato's political philosophy, singled out the special scientific study of a certain area of social relations into an independent science of politics.
According to Aristotle, people can only live in society, under the conditions of a political system, since “man is by nature a political being.” To properly organize social life, people need politics.
Politics is a science, knowledge of how to best organize the joint life of people in a state.
Politics is the art and skill of public administration.
The essence of politics is revealed through its goal, which, according to Aristotle, is to give citizens high moral qualities, to make them people who act fairly. That is, the goal of politics is a fair (common) good. Achieving this goal is not easy. A politician must take into account that people have not only virtues, but also vices. Therefore, the task of politics is not to educate morally perfect people, but to cultivate virtues in citizens. The virtue of a citizen consists of the ability to fulfill one's civic duty and the ability to obey authorities and laws. Therefore, a politician must look for the best, that is, the most appropriate state structure for the specified purpose.
The state is a product of natural development, but at the same time the highest form of communication. Man by nature is a political being, and in the state (political communication) the process of this political nature of man is completed.
Aristotle formulated logical laws:
law of identity - a concept must be used in the same meaning in the course of reasoning;
the law of contradiction - “do not contradict yourself”;
the law of the excluded middle - “A or not-A is true, there is no third.”
Aristotle especially strongly criticized Plato's theory. He pointed out, for example, that bodies cannot consist of planes and that, according to Plato, a large amount of “fire” can be heavier than a small amount of “earth,” while fire is absolutely light. Aristotle also noted that Plato’s ideas about the mutual transformation of elements are untenable. So, for example, when water turns into air, then, as is known from experience, the resulting air occupies such a large volume that when water is heated in a clogged vessel, the latter bursts under the pressure of the resulting air. Meanwhile, from the explanation of this process, according to Plato, it does not follow from anywhere that the resulting air particles should occupy a larger volume than the original water particle. He also believed that the figures attributed by Plato to individual types of matter do not in any way explain their most important properties. If combustion is caused by the sharp angles of the flame particles, then all these polyhedra should cause combustion to a greater or lesser extent.
Criticism of Plato's doctrine of ideas.
Aristotle considered the basis of human knowledge, the so-called “first philosophy,” to be the doctrine of the first causes, the first and highest intelligible principles of everything that exists (what is today called ontology). This section of his teaching is set out in a collection of 14 books, united in the 1st century. BC. Andronicus of Rhodes under the general title “Metaphysics”. Literally, "metaphysics" means "that which is after physics." Andronicus of Rhodes entitled these initially scattered fragments this way, apparently simply for the reason that he began studying them after becoming acquainted with Aristotle’s Physics. By some irony, the word “metaphysics” over time became a common noun, used to designate any doctrine about the intelligible principles of existence that “precedes” its physical embodiment. But an even greater irony is that even today “metaphysics” very often refers to rather arbitrary spiritualistic and at the same time scientific fantasies about “ideas” or some other worlds that invisibly determine the course of things in the physical world we perceive. However, the epistemological attitude, which allows not only the truth, but at least even the meaningfulness of such discourses, is in radical contradiction with the position directly stated in Aristotle’s Metaphysics.
Already in the First Book of Metaphysics Aristotle contains a fundamental criticism of the doctrine of ideas belonging to his mentor Plato. (“Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer” was said precisely on this occasion.) The Stagirite (a common nickname for Aristotle, a native of the city of Stagira) believed that Plato’s ideas “do not bring any benefit” to sensory things, since they are not the cause for them any movement or change. They are also useless for the existence of these things, since they are not in them themselves. “To say that ideas are patterns, and that everything else participates in them, means uttering empty words and expressing ourselves in poetic metaphors.” (Aristotle. Metaphysics. 991a, 20.) Thus, ideas not only do not provide anything for understanding the surrounding reality, but when trying to explain anything with their help, they give rise to a whole series of paradoxes. For example, for the same thing several samples will appear: for a person they will be “living creature”, and “biped”, and “man in himself”. Moreover, ideas must somehow be thought of as models for themselves: an idea expressing a genus is a model for ideas of species. It turns out that the idea turns out to be both a model and a copy. Also, the world of ideas would have to grow indefinitely: by comparing a person with his idea, we discover their similarity, which, since it There is, must also be involved in the corresponding idea, which, in turn, we compare with a person and again discover similarities, etc. In a word, “while wisdom seeks the cause of the things that open to our gaze, we [discussing ideas] left this question aside (we don’t say anything about the reason where the change originates), but, considering that we indicate the essence of these things, we actually affirm the existence of other entities; and how these latter are the essences of our (here) things, we talk about this in vain; for participation (as we said above) means nothing.”
It turns out that Aristotle’s main claim to the doctrine of ideas is that it does not bring any clarity to the objects around us, but simply doubles them in the imagination, postulating outside the world accessible to our senses the existence of another, “similar” world, only without any uncertainty and imperfections. It can be said that Aristotle opposes Plato’s “utopianism,” considering it the result not so much of cognitive as of poetic activity of the soul, engaged not in the orderly clarification of existing reality, but in its denial and depreciation in the name of artificial ideal constructions.
Related information.
), at the same time critical philosophy developed. She discovered that there are boundaries that human knowledge cannot cross.
The origins of skeptical analysis regarding reason already occurred within the sensualist position of the English philosopher John Locke, who rejected Descartes' position regarding the existence of innate ideas, as well as the apriorism of Spinoza and Leibniz. Science, according to Locke, should focus on the study of the primary qualities of things (shape, gravity, motion), since this is the only opportunity to obtain reliable knowledge. Secondary qualities of things (color, smell, taste) are subjective.
Following Locke, a Dutch bishop develops a skeptical line George Berkeley(1685-1753). He recognizes: all human experience (both primary and secondary qualities) is subjective and limited by appearances presented to the mind. Therefore, sensory sensations of the primary qualities of things are the same mental concepts as the secondary ones. It is impossible to conclusively conclude that there is a world of material objects beyond the mind, for there is no reliable and reliable way of distinguishing an object from sense impressions. No one can go beyond his own mind to compare an idea with a real thing.
Berkeley takes on atheism and materialism. Any experience is nothing more than a subjective experience, and, therefore, the existence of a material world external to the mind is only an assumption. Only the existence of mind and sensations can be stated with certainty.
Why then do different people at all times perceive the world more or less the same? Why is this world characterized by stable order? Berkeley's answer: the world and its order are dependent on the Divine Mind. It produces sensible ideas in the minds of individuals according to certain rules. These ideas and their combinations are constantly renewed.
How does science develop? Berkeley's answer: It is not an obstacle for science to recognize the immaterial basis of sense data, for it can study objects, fully reconciled with the consciousness of this.
Berkeley was followed by an Englishman David Hume(1711-1776) - a proponent of agnosticism who took empirical criticism to its extreme extreme. He, however, went in the other direction from Berkeley, closer to the position of the French skeptic Michel Montaigne. Hume did not agree with the idealistic conclusions of Berkeley, who identified external objects with their internal ideas rooted in God.
Hume's question: What causes sense impressions?
Answer: the mind can never truly know what causes sensations, because... he never experiences the “cause” as a sensation. He experiences only simple impressions (a chaos of scraps and heaps). The mind experiences certain impressions which make one think that they are caused by some objective substance. However, the mind never comes into contact with this substance, but always deals only with impressions.
Example: the mind notices that event A is followed by event B, and on this basis may come to the conclusion that A is the cause of B. In fact, all we know is that A and B were regularly perceived in close proximity . The causal relationship itself has never been observed. Therefore, it is unacceptable to talk about its reliable existence outside the boundaries of the human mind. A person arbitrarily imposes order on his impressions. This is the habit of the mind to arrange disparate events and facts in a consistent series.
Example: There are two types of statements:
a) based on the pure feeling “it’s sunny today,” which is always random;
b) based on pure reason “a square has all four sides equal”, which concern the relationships between concepts.
These are mathematical truths. And they are true only in their logical system, without needing correlation with the outside world. Reason is unable to affirm any truth regarding the true nature of things.
Hume's reasoning cast doubt on empirical science itself, because. the logical basis of the latter - induction - was considered unreliable. He argues that science is nothing more than subjective sensations, a world of visible phenomena recorded by the mind. All human knowledge is an opinion. For the mind, only sensory impressions are real, and no one has the right to say anything about what lies behind them.
If Locke still retained faith in the ability of the human mind to comprehend, albeit imperfectly, at least the general outlines of the external world, then Hume believed that reason did not even dare to encroach on access to knowledge of the world order.
If Berkeley connected human reason with the divine, then under Hume there was no God, no order, no causality, no substantial entities, no true consciousness. Everything is completely random. A person knows only disorderly impressions: the order that he observes in them is only visible, since a person experiences a psychological need for it. Hume's arguments proved to be a stimulus for the skeptical position of Immanuel Kant.
The most important concept of Hume's social and ethical doctrine is justice. Hume considers the strengthening of the institution of private property in society to be a condition for social justice. Equality is the opposite of justice. Equality of property does not lead to equality of abilities and needs. Therefore, establishing equality is a utopia.
Along with a positive assessment of the possibilities of knowledge, philosophical agnosticism (denial of the possibility of a person’s knowledge of the world through his experience) was also revived in the 17th century. He showed himself in the works of Berkeley and Hume, who believed that man knows only the world of phenomena, but is not able to penetrate into the depths of things, to achieve knowledge of the laws of the surrounding nature.
Berkeley criticized the concepts of matter as the material basis of bodies. He sought to prove that we perceive only the properties of things, i.e. how these things affect our senses, but we do not grasp the essence of the thing itself, and perception is subjective. Sensory impressions are phenomena of the psyche. Berkeley proves the right idea - about the relativity of our perceptions, their dependence on the state of the subject.
Having rejected the existence of matter, it recognizes the existence only of human consciousness, in which Berkeley distinguishes between “ideas” and “souls” (“minds”).
According to Berkeley, the connection between different types of sensations belongs to the field of logic and objectivity. Only the human soul establishes a connection between the “hints” of the diverse content of different sensations. Thus, the soul creates “things” and gives shape to “objects”.
Both tactile sensations and visual images represent signs the language of nature, which God sends to the senses and reason so that a person learns to regulate his actions necessary to maintain life, and adapt them to circumstances, so as not to endanger his life. This means that vision is a tool for preserving life, but in no case is it a means of proving the reality of the external world.
According to Berkeley, “objective reality appears to us only on the basis of the interpretation of “signs” by sensations, the only ones originally known. And only when we establish a certain connection between different classes of mappings and consider their corresponding mutual dependence that has developed between them, only then can we consider that the first step in the construction of reality has been taken.
Berkeley argues that the division into primary and secondary qualities is erroneous, since virtually all qualities are secondary and their existence is reduced to the ability to be perceived. Accordingly, the concept of “matter” in the sense of its existence as something objective does not make sense, since there is nothing outside our consciousness. There is only spiritual existence, in which Berkeley distinguishes ideas as certain qualities we perceive. They are passive, exist in a person in the form of passions and sensations and are not a copy of objects in the external world.
In addition, in spiritual existence there are “souls” that act as an active principle, as a cause. All this is true, but this does not save Berkeley from extreme conclusions leading to subjective idealism.
A slightly different concept was developed by the philosopher David Hume, who continued it in the direction of agnosticism. When asked whether the outside world exists, Hume answered evasively: “I don’t know.”
Hume believed that our knowledge begins with experience and is limited to it; there is no innate knowledge. Therefore, we cannot know the source of our experience and cannot go beyond it (knowledge of the future and infinity). Experience is always limited by the past. Experience consists of perceptions, perceptions are divided into impressions (sensations and emotions) and ideas (memories and imagination).
In experience, we are first given one impression of a certain phenomenon, and then another. But the first is not necessarily the reason for the second. From this we can conclude: after this does not mean therefore. Further, Hume made the incorrect conclusion about the impossibility of knowing objective causes. He argued that the source of our practical confidence is not theoretical knowledge, but faith. So, we are sure of the daily sunrise. This confidence comes from the habit of seeing a given phenomenon repeat itself.
After perceiving the material, the learner begins to process these ideas. Decomposition by similarities and differences, far from each other or nearby. Everything consists of impressions. Hume believed that the question of determining the source of sensation was fundamentally insoluble.
In the 19th century, this position began to be called agnosticism. Sometimes the false impression is created that Hume asserts the absolute impossibility of knowledge, but this is not entirely true. We know the content of consciousness, which means the world in consciousness is known. That is, we know the world that appears in our consciousness, but we will never know the essence of the world, we can only know phenomena. This direction is called
Idealism- a general designation of philosophical teachings that assert that consciousness, thinking, mental, spiritual is primary, fundamental, and matter, nature, physical is secondary, derivative, dependent, conditioned. Objective idealism exists somewhere outside of my consciousness (take care of your soul). Subjective idealism is a system of principles, dreams, fantasies formed by the subject and dependent on him (take care of the person).
Prominent representatives of subjective idealism were Berkeley, Hume, and Fichte.
In contrast to objective idealists subjective idealists(Berkeley, Hume, etc.) believed that:
Everything exists only in the consciousness of the cognizing subject (human);
Ideas exist in the mind of man;
Images (ideas) of material things also exist only in the human mind through sensory sensations;
Outside the consciousness of an individual person, neither matter nor spirit (ideas) exists.
A weak feature of idealism is the lack of a reliable (logical) explanation for the very presence of “pure ideas” and the transformation of a “pure idea” into a concrete thing (the mechanism for the emergence of matter and ideas).
Idealism as a philosophical trend dominated in Platonic Greece, the Middle Ages, and is now widespread in the USA, Germany, and other countries of Western Europe.
1. George Berkeley(1685 - 1753) - English philosopher of modern times, subjective idealist. The following can be distinguished main ideas his philosophy:
The very concept of matter is false;
There are separate things, separate sensations, but there is no single matter as such (You can only perceive separate things and their properties).;
Materialism is a dead-end direction in philosophy; materialists are not able to prove the primacy of individual things (which they call matter) in relation to the idea;
On the contrary, the primacy of the idea is easily provable - before the production of any thing, there is its ideal, a plan in the mind of a person, as well as the plan of the surrounding world in the consciousness of God the Creator;
The only obvious reality is the consciousness of man;
The original beginning is sensations, combination of sensations (ideas) - they are generated by the spirit and do not exist outside the spirit. An idea can only be compared to an idea, an idea can only be compared to an idea
With the death of a person and his consciousness, everything disappears;
Ideas are an independent substrate, and not a reflection of something; the world around us adapts to ideas;
The highest proof of the primacy of the idea is the existence of God; God eternally exists and cannot disappear, while his creation, the surrounding world, is impermanent,
fragile and entirely dependent on him.
There is not one subject in the world (solism is the extreme form of subjective idealism, which recognizes only the thinking subject as an undoubted reality, and the rest exists only in the consciousness of this subject). A thing can be perceived by other subjects. Things cannot disappear if even all subjects disappear, because things remain to exist as a set of “ideas” of God
2. David Hume(1711 - 1776) - another English philosopher, a subjective idealist, developed Berkeley's views, giving them the form of skepticism and agnosticism.
Agnosticism: comprehension of the essence is impossible, they denied the possibility of obtaining reliable knowledge about the world (Kant, Berkeley)
Skepticism- a philosophical position based on doubt about the existence of any reliable criterion of truth.
He held the following views:
The problem of the relationship between being and spirit is insoluble;
Reality appears to us as a stream of direct impressions that we receive when we see, hear, desire, feel
The source of knowledge is experience - a set of sensations
Ideas are formed on the basis of impressions (feelings) of experience. Ideas, according to Hume, are copies of our impressions
Human consciousness is prone to ideas;
Man himself is a concentrated idea (all human life is a process of growth of his ideal power - experience, knowledge, feelings);
Without his ideal essence (for example, without upbringing, experience, value system), a person would not be able to fully perceive the world at all;
A person consists of two ideal principles: “impressions of external experience” - acquired knowledge and experience; “impressions of internal experience” - affects, passions;
Affects and passions play a big role in human life and in the course of history.
In the explanation of causality, agnosticism, as a doctrine that denies the possibility of knowing the world, manifested itself especially clearly in Hume. (our experience gives us only a sequence of phenomena, but does not reveal secret internal connections, forces. We cannot know how objects, things, etc. influence each other)
In practice, he defended the positions of “common sense” and utilitarianism (the moral value of behavior or action is determined by its usefulness). He saw the task of knowledge not in adequate knowledge, but in the possibility of being a guide for practice
18. French enlightenment and philosophical materialism of the 18th century (French enlighteners - Diderot, Holbach)
History of France in the second half of the 18th century. is a classic example of how the social structure of a new, capitalist society develops and matures in the political shell of a feudal society. Already the strengthening of absolutism in the 17th-18th centuries. in France contributed to the development of the productive forces of society. But at the same time, the rise of absolutism imparted a significant force of inertia to the political system of the “old regime.” This inertia exacerbated the contradiction between the capitalist mode of production, which was victoriously making its way, bourgeois social relations and the dilapidated feudal political system, which extremely hampered the development of the new social system.
This contradiction was also reflected in the ideological state of French society. The development of a new, bourgeois mode of production and trade stimulated the development of mathematics and natural sciences and was itself dependent on their success.
Along with new ideas of mathematics, physics, mechanics, physiology, and medicine, the ideas of philosophical materialism penetrated into consciousness. This new phenomenon was opposed by the forces of ideological reaction, c. first of all, the intellectual forces of Catholicism and those figures of science and literature who were the conductors of its influence on society. This influence still remained extremely strong. Nevertheless, the emancipation of thought moved steadily forward. Even four decades before the bourgeois revolution of 1789, a broad and powerful movement arose in France, known as the Enlightenment. Its goal was to criticize the foundations of feudal ideology, religious superstitions and prejudices, in the struggle for religious tolerance, for freedom of scientific and philosophical thought; for reason, against faith, for science, against mysticism; for freedom of research, against its suppression by authority; for criticism, against apologetics.
The French Enlightenment, like the English, arose on the basis of the successes of new science and was itself a powerful champion and fighter of science. Some figures of the French Enlightenment were prominent scientists (for example, D'Alembert). The struggle for enlightenment made them publicists. The Enlightenment principles they stood for made them philosophers.
The philosophy of French enlighteners is heterogeneous. The Enlightenment had not only a materialistic, but also an idealistic wing, not only an atheistic, but also a deistic direction. The theoretical sources of the French Enlightenment are also heterogeneous. An important source of ideas and teachings of the French Enlightenment were the ideas and teachings of the English Enlightenment. The possibility of this influence was due to the fact that the French Enlightenment, like the English, was generally a movement of bourgeois social thought. In England, French enlighteners found concepts and theories that expressed their own thoughts, but which had previously been formed, had been formulated earlier and therefore could become a model for them to a certain extent.
Holbach Paul Henri (1723 - 1789)- one of the main representatives
French materialism and atheism of the 18th century, ideologist of the French
revolutionary bourgeoisie, member of the "Encyclopedia", author of the famous book
"System of Nature". Holbach defines nature as the cause of all things.
Matter, according to Holbach, is an objective reality that affects
human sense organs. Holbach's serious merit is his recognition
movement as an integral attribute of matter. Towards human society
Holbach comes from the position of idealism and bourgeois enlightenment.
Diderot Denis (1713-1784)- great French educator, philosopher
materialist, the greatest ideologist of the revolutionary bourgeoisie of the 18th century,
founder and editor of the Encyclopedia. Diderot recognizes the objective
existence of matter; Matter is eternal, it is inherent in movement. Absolute
peace, according to Diderot, is an abstraction; it does not exist in nature. Diderot is an atheist. He
strongly denied the existence of God and criticized philosophical idealism and
religious dogmas about the immortality of the soul, free will, etc. Rejecting
philosophical morality, Diderot laid the basis for the moral behavior of people
people's desire for happiness. He preached a reasonable combination of personal and
public interests. Explaining nature materialistically, Diderot, however,
remained an idealist in the field of nature. The nature of the social system is like
and other French materialists of the 18th century, made them dependent on
political organization of society, which from his point of view arises from
existing legislation and, ultimately, from those prevailing in
society of ideas. He connected his hopes for a reasonable structure of society with
manifestation of an enlightened sovereign. Diderot - a major theorist of aesthetics and
works: "Thoughts to explain nature", "Ramo's nephew", "Conversation
d'Alembert and Diderot", "D'Alembert's Dream" and others.
19. Kant’s philosophy: the doctrine of knowledge
Kant's philosophical development is usually divided into two periods: first - until the early 70s - "subcritical", the second - from the early 70s - "critical", since it was then that the main works were written: “Critique of Pure Reason”, “Critique of Practical Reason” and “Critique of Judgment”. The main work is the first work devoted to the theory of knowledge. The second "critique" expounds ethics, and the third - aesthetics.
During the "pre-critical period" Kant deals with questions of natural science, conducts the idea of development in nature. Kant, in his book “General Natural History and Theory of the Heavens,” puts forward a hypothesis about the origin of the solar system from the original nebula. Next, Kant comes close to the conclusion about the plurality of worlds, about the continuous process of their emergence and disappearance.
Kant is credited with creating another cosmogonic theory - the slowing down of the Earth's rotation due to the action of tides in the ocean. Kant's historical, dialectical approach to natural science dealt a significant blow to the metaphysical worldview that was dominant at that time. However, one cannot ignore the dual, contradictory position of the philosopher on this issue. On the one hand, he strives to give a scientific picture of the emergence of the Solar system based on the action of the laws of the development of matter. But, on the other hand, he sees the ultimate root cause of the world in God.
Problems of the theory of knowledgestand at the center of Kant's philosophical system . The process of cognition includes three stages: sensory knowledge, rational knowledge, rational knowledge. All our knowledge begins with the work of the senses. They are influenced by objects in the external world that are outside the person, or things in themselves. Things in themselves remain unknowable.
The sensations caused by the action of things in themselves on sensuality do not provide knowledge about the object. Although sensations are caused by the influence of “things-in-themselves” on human sensuality, they have nothing to do with these things. This point of view is called agnosticism . Although our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it comes entirely from experience. Knowledge has a complex composition and consists of two parts. The philosopher calls the first part "matter" knowledge. This is a stream of sensations, or empirical knowledge given a posteriori, i.e. through experience. The second part - form - is given before the experience, a priori and must be completely ready to be in the soul.
Thus, along with agnosticism, a characteristic feature of Kant’s theory of knowledge is apriorism. The question arises of where the a priori forms of sensibility come from. The philosopher cannot answer this question. For Kant, the concepts “a priori”, “necessary”, “universal”, “objective” are closely intertwined and are used as equivalent. At the same time, he refused to recognize a priori knowledge as innate.
If, according to Kant, the “matter” of knowledge is of an experimental, a posteriori character, then the form of sensory knowledge is extra-experimental, a priori. Before the perception of objects of experimental knowledge, “pure” ones must exist in us, i.e. free from everything empirical, visual representations that are the form, the condition of all experience. So “pure”, i.e. a priori visual representations are space and time. According to the philosopher, space and time are forms precisely sensuality, and not reason. There is, as Kant thought, one and only time and one and only space. Space does not at all represent a property of any things in themselves; time also does not belong to things in themselves either as their property or as their substance. Kant thus turns them into special properties of the subject.
First stage of knowledge
characterized by a person’s ability to organize the chaos of sensations using space and time.
In this way, according to Kant, the world of phenomena is formed.
The next stage is the area of reason
.
Experience is a product of activity, on the one hand, of sensuality, on the other, of reason. Judgments of perception derived from sensibility have only subjective meaning. A perceptual judgment must acquire an “objective” meaning, i.e. acquire the character of necessity and thereby become an “experienced” judgement. This occurs by subsuming the judgment of perception under the a priori category of the understanding. There are only 12 of them: these are categories unity, plurality, universality, reality, negation, limitation, belonging, causality, communication, possibility, existence, necessity. Kant cannot justify why there are exactly twelve categories and where they come from.
Example: “When the sun shines on a stone, it becomes warm.” We have a simple judgment of perception, in which the cause-and-effect relationship between solar heat and heating of the stone is not yet expressed. But if we say: “The sun warms the stone,” then the category of cause is added to the judgment of perception, which turns this judgment into an experimental one. Causality is one of the categories.
The last and highest stage of rational knowledge . Reason, unlike reason, generates "transcendental ideas" beyond the limits of experience. There are three such ideas: 1) psychological (the doctrine of the soul), 2) cosmological (the doctrine of the world), 3) theological (the doctrine of God). These ideas express the desire of the mind to comprehend things in themselves. The mind eagerly strives to comprehend these things, but they remain unknown. As a result, the mind creates only “antinomies” and becomes entangled in insoluble contradictions. Antinomies- contradictory, incompatible provisions, each of which can be proven logically flawlessly. Such four antinomies:
1) thesis- “The world has a beginning in time and is also limited in space”;
antithesis:“The world has no beginning in time and no boundaries in space; it is infinite both in time and in space.”
2) thesis:“Every complex substance in the world consists of simple parts, and in general there is only the simple and that which is made up of simple things”;
antithesis:“Not a single complex thing in the world is made up of simple things, and in general there is nothing simple in the world.”
3) thesis:“Causality according to the laws of nature is not the only causality from which all phenomena in the world can be derived. To explain phenomena, it is necessary to allow free causality”;
antithesis:“There is no freedom, but everything happens in the world only according to the laws of nature.”
4) thesis:“An absolutely necessary being belongs to the world, either as a part of it, or as its cause”;
antithesis:“There is no absolutely necessary being, either in the world or outside the world, as its cause.” In other words, there is no God.
Kant believes that he proves both the thesis and antithesis of each antinomy equally flawlessly from the point of view of logic. So, antinomies are contradictions that testify to the powerlessness of reason, its inability to comprehend “things in themselves.”
Kant's ethical teaching
“Practical reason” - the doctrine of morality, ethics. According to Kant, in the field of morality, man is no longer subject to necessity, which dominates with inevitable force in the sphere of phenomena. As a subject of moral consciousness, a person is free, i.e. connected to the world of things in themselves. Kant establishes a relationship of subordination between theoretical and practical reason: theoretical reason is subordinate to practical reason.
By practice, Kant understood not real activity, but the scope of application of moral assessments of people's actions. The basis of any moral assessments is categorical imperative - Kant's fundamental law of ethics. An imperative is a form of command associated with the category of what is due. The philosopher calls a categorical imperative a form of command that represents an action as if for its own sake, without relation to another goal. The imperative is not associated with the desire for the benefit or happiness of people, it is strictly formal and a priori in nature and has the form of a commandment, unconditional, mandatory for all people. The categorical imperative is formulated as follows: act in such a way that the maxim (basic principle) of your will at all times could serve as the principle of universal legislation. This principle is abstract in nature. It can meet a wide variety of requirements and postulates: religious commandments, conclusions of worldly wisdom, and much more.
The most important specification of the categorical imperative is the “practical” imperative: act in such a way that humanity in your person, as well as in the person of everyone else, is certainly used as an end and never as a means.
These provisions, expressing the principles of humanism, had great progressive significance for their time. They contain a protest against the feudal-absolutist system that enslaves people. J.J. had a great influence on Kant's ethical and socio-political views. Rousseau. Speaking for human rights, the philosopher emphasized that “a person dependent on another there is no longer a man; ... slavery is the highest of evils.” Kant borrowed from Rousseau the idea of the independence of the moral nature of man from the achievements of science and culture, refracting it in his doctrine of the independence and originality of morality, the primacy of practical reason over theoretical reason. Kant believed that morality is autonomous and independent of religion. On the contrary, religion must be derived from the principles of morality. The practical imperative proclaimed man to be an end, not a means. A person cannot be anyone’s slave, including God’s servant.
Kant dreamed of eternal peace on earth, of a union of free states and free peoples as the guarantor of this peace. His treatise “Eternal Peace” is devoted to the rationale for this.
After consolidating its class rule and establishing peace with its former opponents, the English bourgeoisie, represented by its ideologists, retreats from empiricism, which tends to materialism, and moves to the position of subjective idealism.
George Berkeley
One of its ideologists was George Berkeley (1685 - 1753). His philosophical works are considered by domestic historians of philosophy as a reaction to the democratic teachings of the previous time. He saw in atheism a great danger to the minds. As a clergyman, he opposed materialism.
Berkeley, in his essays “An Essay on the Theory of Vision” (1709), “A Treatise on the Principles of Human Knowledge” (1710) (main work), “Three Conversations between Hylos and Philonus” (1713) and others, reveals his philosophical system of subjective idealism.
The uniqueness of D. Berkeley’s philosophy lies in the fact that he sought to protect religion from materialism. To this end, he interprets the ideas of materialism in a subjective-idealistic spirit. Agreeing with the fact that a person comprehends the world with the help of sensations, he turns them into the basis not only of knowledge, but also of our worldview. In Berkeley's understanding, sensations are the only reality with which the cognizing subject deals. According to Berkeley, only sensations exist, and matter does not exist. She is the prejudice of materialists.
Specific material things are, according to his ideas, modifications of consciousness.
In Berkeley, subjective idealistic assumptions are supported by objective idealistic ones. The cause of ideas formed on the basis of sensations, in his opinion, is God. His philosophy was sharply criticized by materialists. Controversy with Berkeley in subsequent times revealed the shortcomings of the ontological and epistemological ideas of subjective idealism.
David Hume
The English philosopher, historian and economist David Hume (1711 - 1776) seemed to sum up the evolution of British philosophy from empiricism gravitating towards materialism to Berkeley's subjective idealism. He became the progenitor of most of the philosophical teachings of the next two centuries. The main work of D. Hume is “A Treatise on Human Nature” (1739 - 1740). For a number of years he was in the diplomatic service. In Paris, he found a favorable reception from French materialists in 1763 - 1766. Hume as a philosopher was influenced by Berkeley's ideas. However, unlike Berkeley, a militant champion of idealism and religion, Hume is a skeptic
. The Edinburgh thinker seeks to avoid the extremes of Berkeley's philosophy and open conflict with the conclusions of natural science.
As for the causal connection of phenomena, in his opinion, if it exists, it is unknowable. He believed that the source of knowledge about the order of things is not theoretical research, but faith. According to Hume, the results of the efforts of philosophers demonstrate only the blindness and weakness of the human mind. The underestimation of the importance of scientific knowledge and the exaggeration of the role of common sense on the part of the Edinburgh thinker is a peculiar reaction to the excessive claims of reason and science in the era of enlightenment, when it is then discovered that they cannot fulfill their promises.
Hume's skeptical philosophy makes a concession to agnosticism, which rejects knowledge of the world or doubts that a person is capable of having knowledge about the world.
The historical significance of D. Hume's philosophy lies in the fact that his skepticism forced philosophers who lived after him to continue understanding the theory and psychology of knowledge, as well as direct efforts to study ethical problems.
Philosophy in France
While in the British Isles public consciousness, and with it philosophy, were moving further and further away from the mentality of the period of revolutionary change, different processes were taking place in France. In the middle of the 18th century. France was on the eve of a revolutionary situation, and this determined the features of its philosophical life.
The philosophy of the 18th century, dominant in France, is called the philosophy of enlightenment. “The period of its development can be conditionally limited to two dates: the year of the death of Louis XIV (1715), which put an end to the era of “brilliant” absolutism, and the year of the storming of the Bastille (1789), after which life made new demands on philosophy.”
This culture cultivated common sense, which consisted in a person’s ability to think independently, appealing to the knowledge accumulated in society, common practice and the guidance of the rules accepted in a given environment for the benefit received. The common sense of that time focused on the affirmation of private interest, “reasonable egoism,” and the condemnation of everything that seemed to hinder the movement of society towards a prosperous state. As noted in the 2nd book of “History of Philosophy: West - Russia - East”: “The cultivation of such a special human ability as common sense, more broadly, the ability to judge, is the merit of the Enlightenment, who thanks to this gave Western civilization the idea of a perfect personality. This is also the specificity of French educational philosophy.”
Charles Montesquieu
Charles Montesquieu (1689 - 1755) was one of the first figures of the French enlightenment. Already his essay “Persian Letters” aroused considerable interest among readers, and his work “The Spirit of Laws” (1748) placed him among the outstanding minds of his time. He opposed despotism and insisted that it was not human thoughts that diverged from existing beliefs and institutions that should be punished, but actions. Montesquieu promotes the principle of complete religious tolerance. He believed that the state structure and social consciousness do not depend on otherworldly forces. He explained the differences in social structure, as well as the peculiarities of the intellectual make-up of peoples, by the peculiarities of the climate of the countries in which they lived.
C. Montesquieu is considered the founder of geographical determinism, since he made the cultural development of peoples strictly dependent on the geographical conditions of their existence.
Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
François Marie Arouet Voltaire (1694 - 1778) had a great influence on the ideological life of France in the era under consideration. He went down in cultural history as one of the greatest writers in France. And although he did not create any special philosophical system, nevertheless, his criticism of religion, despotism, official state security installations, outdated ethics and morality played a positive role in the emancipation of minds.
Voltaire was a supporter of the teachings of I. Newton. In his works “Philosophical Letters” (1734), “Metaphysical Treatise” (1734) he defends the ideas of atomism and determinism. He believed that knowledge stems from sensations.
He opposed B. Pascal and J.-J. Rousseau, who contrasted unspoiled nature with culture. According to Voltaire, a return to primitive culture is unnatural. He believed that a civilized person is in greater harmony with nature than a savage.
Voltaire believed that the driving factor of history is the struggle of opinions that mediate the actions of people. He believed that history was not subject to laws.
In the field of ethics, Voltaire struggled both with the doctrine that insists on the innateness of moral ideas in humans, and with the ideas according to which these ideas have a conditional, conventional nature.
Etienne-Bonneau de Condillac
One of the most thorough and systematic minds of the French enlightenment was Etienne-Bonneau de Condillac (1715 - 1780). His development as a philosopher was greatly influenced by the ideas of D. Locke. In his main work “Treatise on Sensations” (1754), developing the sensationalistic theory of knowledge, he derives all human knowledge from sensations. Rejecting the Cartesian theory of innate ideas, Condillac believed that the development of human abilities is determined solely by experience, exercise, and education. Contrary to Locke, who considered reflection an independent source of knowledge, Condillac proves that reflection is based on sensations and is a secondary level of knowledge derived from them. Caudillac's merit was that he added an element of rationalism to sensationalism, insisting that sensations must be expressed in a language that has a certain logic.
Condillac, in his essay “Treatise on Systems” (1749), expressed many interesting ideas related to systems analysis, which has become an important means of scientific analysis of reality in our time.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The most influential thinker of the French Enlightenment is Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 - 1778). He was born in Geneva. His youth was spent in poverty and wandering. He made his debut with a short essay “Discourse on the Sciences and Arts” (1749), written for a prize at the Dijon Academy. To the question asked by this academy: “Have the successes of the sciences and arts contributed to the improvement of morals?” Rousseau answered in the negative.
Significant milestones in Rousseau’s work related to philosophy were “Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Between People” (1755), “On the Social Contract” (1762), “Emile, or on Education” (1762), “New Heloise” (1761).
According to Rousseau, the source of inequality is natural inclinations, but in a civilized society there is also social inequality, which is associated with the emergence of private property, which is the cause of all social ills and misfortunes. He drew attention to the antagonistic and contradictory nature of the historical development of society.
According to Rousseau, the arguments of rational egoism push people to conclude a social contract at the moment in time when they enter the stage of civil status. However, the original contract has ceased to be true and therefore justice requires breaking the old contract, since the rich have usurped power and turned it to their own benefit. It is necessary to conclude a new, now fair agreement. The means of establishing a new treaty can be revolution and even dictatorship when the fatherland is in danger. However, popular sovereignty and the people's right to power, according to Rousseau, must be inalienable. Popular sovereignty is understood by the thinker as the right to the adoption of laws by the people, on the basis of a plebiscite, or popular poll, constantly operating in the state, on all serious issues of civil life. For the correct use of their sovereignty, the people must be enlightened. Morally educated people will change society not on the paths of revolutionary struggle, but on the paths of timely establishment of harmonious relations in the world.
Starting around the middle of the 18th century. In France, a galaxy of Enlightenment thinkers appeared, many of whom were also remarkable representatives of philosophical materialism. French materialism of the 18th century. - a new historical stage in the development of philosophy, significantly different from previous materialist teachings. French materialism absorbed much of what had been accumulated by both materialism and idealism. He based his conclusions on the achievements of science as a whole. This materialism was atheistic.
French materialism
The prerequisites for materialism, to one degree or another, had already taken shape by the 18th century. The philosophical systems of F. Bacon, T. Hobbes, J. Locke, R. Descartes, B. Spinoza, I. Newton and some other thinkers of the New Age, as well as the Renaissance and Antiquity, played a big role in this.
The establishment of the position of materialism in the French Enlightenment is associated with the aggravation of socio-political relations in Europe in the 18th century.
However, French philosophers were not the first in the development of materialist views. A few decades earlier, the English thinkers J. Toland (1670-1722) and J. Collins (1676-1729) came up with similar ideas.
Despite this, French materialism is of outstanding historical significance because it:
- opposed the medieval and all those institutions that bore the stamp of anti-humanism of the Middle Ages;
- substantiated his worldview and human interests.
French materialism tried to bridge the gap between nature (flora and fauna) and man.
Representatives of French materialism
The most prominent representatives of French materialism were La Mettrie (1709 - 1751), Holbach (1729 - 1789), D. Diderot (1713 - 1784), C. A. Helvetius (1715 - 1771).
The founder of French materialism of the 18th century. Julien-Aufray La Mettrie outlined the main ideas, which were later fleshed out by other representatives of this school.
La Mettrie argued that not only any form of movement is inseparable from matter, but also all matter is associated with movement. Deprived of the ability to move, inert matter is only an abstraction. Substance is ultimately reduced to matter.
In his main philosophical work, “Man is a Machine,” he expressed his attitude to previous philosophy and outlined the basic principles of mechanistic materialism. He viewed man as a machine. La Mettrie argued that the boundaries between the mineral, plant and animal “kingdoms” are relative.
In the most systematized form, the ideas of French materialism are presented in the works Holbach fields. His main work, “System of Nature,” reflected the doctrine of the movement of matter. Proving the inseparability of matter and motion, Holbach denied that the source of motion is God. According to Holbach, the Universe is only an immense chain of causes and effects, continuously flowing from each other. The relationship between them is subject to strict necessity. According to Holbach, there is no place for randomness in nature.
Denis Diderot called the most profound representative of French materialism. His great life feat was the publication of the Encyclopedia, which outlined the Enlightenment worldview. Diderot stayed in Russia for about a year at the invitation of Tsarina Catherine II.
The peculiarity of Diderot's philosophical views is that he sought, on the basis of dialectical ideas, to penetrate into the nature of the origin and existence of life. Diderot further developed the theory of knowledge of materialism, ethics and aesthetics.
If in the works of La Mettrie, Holbach and Diderot the main attention was paid to the doctrine of being and knowledge, then in Helvetius the main object of philosophizing is the human mind and himself. His main treatises were called “On the Mind” (1758) and “On Man, His Mental Abilities and His Education” (1773). Helvetius attached particular importance to problems of ethics. He showed that under conditions of an absolute monarchy, moral corruption of society occurs. The autocracy of the monarch gives rise to servility and flattery. Acquaintance with the works of Helvetius led to the idea of the need to change the circumstances of life in order to form a truly moral person. In ethics, Helvetius, like other representatives of French materialism, adhered to the theory of rational egoism, both in understanding the nature of the individual and his relationships with other people.
With all the merits of French materialism, which include:- materialistic solution to philosophical issues in views on nature;
- materialistic justification of the theory of sensations;
- the desire to use the achievements of science in philosophical conclusions;
- the desire to free ethics from mysticism, and morality from prejudice - this materialism was mechanistic materialism.
French materialism had limitations and shortcomings that were found primarily in social theories.
Ultimately, for the French materialists, the course of history was determined mainly by the process of enlightenment and knowledge. Other factors influencing the development of society remained outside their attention. The historical significance of the philosophy of the French Enlightenment lies in the fact that its representatives managed to gain a deeper and more thorough understanding of a number of philosophical problems of their time. This primarily relates to the understanding of man and society, as well as problems of ontology, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics.
