The empiricist philosophers believed that. Characteristic features of empiricism in modern philosophy

The representatives of empiricism include: the Stoics, skeptics, Roger Bacon, Galileo, Campanella, Francis Bacon (the founder of the new empiricism), Hobbes, Locke, Priestley, Berkeley, Hume, Condillac, Comte, James Mill, John Mill, Ben, Herbert Spencer, Dühring, Iberweg, Goering and many others.

In many of the systems of these thinkers, other elements coexist alongside empiricist elements: in Hobbes, Locke and Comte, the influence of Descartes is noticeable, in Spencer - the influence of German idealism and criticism, in Dühring - the influence of Trendelenburg and others. Among the followers of critical philosophy, many tend to empiricism, such as Friedrich Albert Lange, Alois Riehl and Ernst Laas. From the fusion of empiricism with criticism, a special trend of empirio-criticism developed, the founder of which was Richard Avenarius, and the followers of Karstanjen, Mach, Petzold, Willy, Klein, and others.

14. Philosophy: New time: rationalism.

The philosophy of modern times covers the period of the 17th - the first half of the 19th century and is divided into several stages: study guide, and German classical philosophy of the 18th - first half of the 19th century. At this time, humanity stepped into a new period of its history, marked by a powerful civilizational breakthrough. For three centuries, economic, political, general cultural forms of human existence have changed. In the economy, manufactory production and the division of industrial labor associated with it have become widespread; more and more people began to use machines. In the political sphere, new ideas about human rights and freedoms, about the rule of law, were developing, methods for putting these ideas into practice began to be developed. In the sphere of culture, scientific knowledge began to come to the fore. Outstanding discoveries were made in natural science and mathematics, which prepared the scientific and technological revolution. Philosophy stood at the forefront of all these changes. She foreshadowed, stimulated and generalized them.

The seventeenth century is often referred to as the “age of science”. Scientific knowledge about the world was highly valued, which is confirmed by the content and even the form of philosophy. Philosophy, participating in the development of scientific knowledge and often ahead of it, strove to become a “great restoration of the sciences”, if we use the title of F. Bacon’s works, “discourse on the method”, if we use the name of one of Descartes’ works here. Philosophers, like R. Descartes, B. Pascal, G. Leibniz, sometimes themselves were pioneers in mathematics and natural science. At the same time, they did not try to turn philosophy, which had actually ceased to be the servant of theology, into the servant of the sciences of nature. On the contrary, philosophy, as Plato and Aristotle wanted it, they assigned a special place. Philosophy was supposed to fulfill the role of the broadest doctrine, synthesizing knowledge about the natural world, about man as a part of nature and his special “nature”, essence, about society, about the human spirit and, of course, about God as the primordial essence, the root cause and prime mover of everything that exists. In other words, the processes of philosophizing were conceived as "metaphysical reflections," to use again the title of Descartes' work. That is why the philosophers of the XVII century. called "metaphysicians". To this, however, it must be added that their metaphysics (the doctrine of the origins of all being, of the essence of the world, of the absolute, unconditional and supersensible; in addition, the term “metaphysics” is used to denote a method and way of thinking that is opposite to dialectics) was not a simple continuation of traditional metaphysics, but became its innovative processing. Therefore, innovation is the most important distinguishing feature philosophy of modern times compared with scholasticism. But it should be especially emphasized that the first philosophers of the Modern Age were the disciples of the neo-scholastics. However, with all the strength of their minds and souls, they sought to revise, test the inherited knowledge for the truth and strength. Criticism of “idols” by F. Bacon and the method of doubt by R. Descartes in this sense are not just intellectual inventions, but features of the eras: old knowledge was revised, strong rational grounds were found for a new title. The search for rationally substantiated and provable truths of philosophy, comparable with the truths of science, is another feature of the philosophy of modern times. But the main difficulty was that philosophical truths, as it turned out later, cannot have an axiomatic character and cannot be proved by the methods accepted in mathematics. This was especially hoped for by Descartes and Spinoza (and seriously), trying not only to give their writings the form of a scientific treatise, but also sought to conduct all reasoning using the “geometric”, axiomatic-deductive method (a method of constructing scientific theories in the form of systems of axioms and postulates , and rules of inference, which allow, by means of logical deduction, to obtain theorems and statements of a given theory; deduction is a logical operation consisting in the transition from the general to the particular). Subsequently, thinkers moved away from this method, but the desire to orient philosophy towards the exact sciences remained dominant throughout the New Age. It is not surprising that in the 19th and especially in the 20th century there was an opinion according to which the classical philosophy of modern times exaggerated the importance of the scientific, rational, logical principle in human life and in philosophical thinking. And indeed, in the philosophy of the 17th - the first half of the 19th centuries, that is, precisely the New Age (in Western terminology it is called the “philosophy of modernity”), was rationalistic. Here the word “rationalism” is used in a broad sense, which combines both “empiricism” (philosophical doctrine and direction in the theory of knowledge, recognizing sensory experience as the only source of reliable knowledge), elevating all knowledge to experience, and “rationalism” ( philosophical direction, recognizing reason as the basis of knowledge) in a narrower sense, looking for the basis of both experience and non-experimental knowledge in rational principles.

Rationalism can be understood as confidence in the power and ability of the mind (especially the enlightened mind, guided by the correct method) to comprehend the secrets of nature, to know the world around us and man himself, to solve practical life problems with the help of common sense and, ultimately, to build a society on reasonable principles. And certainly with the help of the mind to comprehend God.

But the philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. were interested not only in rational cognition, but also in cognition with the help of feelings - they treated it with special attention, its reliability was proved by supporters of empiricism: Gassendi, Locke, French enlighteners. But Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, who are considered rationalists, also paid considerable attention to sensory experience (which, however, was treated critically), will and “passions of the soul”, affects that, from their point of view, are subject to and controllable by mind. In a word, the 17th and 18th centuries can rightly be considered centuries of rationalism. However, at the same time, self-confident rationalism should not be attributed to the era of the New Age, since the philosophers of this time objectively considered the shortcomings and limitations of the human mind.

One should also take into account the image of the mind, corresponding to the rationalism of the 17th-18th centuries. It was not at all some kind of absolute, omnipotent mind, a receptacle of abstractions (mental selection of the essential properties and connections of an object and abstraction from its particular properties and connections, that is, concrete) and logical ideas. Philosophers will come to this understanding of mind later. 17th century philosophers they also talked about the omnipotent mind, but they attributed it only to God. As for the human mind, in their view it is always a doubting, searching mind, capable of errors and illusions. And yet he is inclined to clear, reliable knowledge. The main thing is that the mind is inscribed in the real human life, is its rather effective tool. It is necessary to take care of it, to strengthen it with the help of simple and clear rules of the method, about which F. Bacon argued from the position of empiricism, and Descartes from the position of rationalism.

Method is not only a weapon of science. When Descartes wrote about the rules, he did not accidentally recall the work of upholsterers, weavers. And one could also talk about the builders, the creators of machines - in a word, about everyone whose activities the new era brought efficiency, order, organization. 17th century sometimes called the "age of Descartes". The fact is that the controversy around his ideas was at the center of the spiritual life of this century. Researchers who point to the connection between Cartesian ideas of method, rational order, organization and that style of architecture, life, and way of life, which is called "Baroque", cannot be mistaken. Palaces and gardens, houses of citizens, streets and squares, teachings about theatrical art and music - all in the 17th and 18th centuries. echoed the philosophy of Descartes and other rationalists. From their era, philosophers of the 17th century. gleaned and conveyed to her philosophically justified ideas of freedom and dignity of the individual. The way of their philosophical substantiation was the concept of the natural principle in man and human "nature", that is, the essence of man.

Philosophers of these two centuries considered man to be a being with natural and spiritual needs. Reason, freedom, the original "natural" equality with other people, the right to own private property, they also included in human nature. This was especially evident in the advanced country of the 17th-18th centuries. Holland, where Spinoza was born and lived and where Descartes spent part of his life. Travelers were amazed by the order and rationality in work, cleanliness, well-being of houses and streets, literacy of citizens, their awareness of the sciences and arts. Perhaps the future Russian Tsar Peter I saw Holland as such a country of free and educated people.

Special mention should be made of the eighteenth century. In many respects connected with the previous century, this century, from the point of view of socio-political and cultural life, is distinguished by its specific features. They are sometimes combined with the term "age of Enlightenment". What is characteristic of the age of the Enlightenment - the age of Newton, A. Smith, Lavoisier, Rousseau, Lessing, Kant, Lomonosov and Radishchev? In socio-economic and political relations it was a controversial century. Countries and states developed unevenly. England, which became a relatively developed industrial country, pulled ahead in the 17th century. survived violent revolutionary upheavals, and in the XVIII century. maintaining a balance of power and some social stability.

The place of the most radical social changes was France, where, as is known, the Great French Revolution took place at the end of the century. Its cause was the unresolved nature of many problems - and above all the existence of serf relations. 18th century called serfdom into question, although it was abolished in a number of European countries only in the next century. But despite all this, the eighteenth century was the century of the strengthening of absolutism, especially in France during the reign of King Louis XVI. On the other hand, this was a century when the fragility of monarchical power, its dependence on the people's will and popular discontent, was especially clearly revealed. This was understood by the monarchs themselves, because the XVIII century. was also a century of “enlightened absolutism” - both crowned rulers and their subjects flirted with the idea of ​​​​an enlightened sovereign. As a result, by the end of the century there was a crisis of absolutism. In philosophy, it was reflected in increased attention to the problems of the rights and freedoms of the individual, to the problems of legality. “On the Spirit of the Laws,” to use the title of Montesquieu’s work, many have pondered. The themes of popular sovereignty and the social contract became popular. “Reasoning the Causes of Inequality Between Men” is also the title of one of Rousseau's main works and at the same time the main theme of philosophical and political discussions. There is an undoubted (clearly discovered by researchers) relationship between the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen” adopted on August 26, 1789, at the beginning of the French Revolution, and the central ideas of the pre-revolutionary philosophy of the French Enlightenment. The first article of the Declaration - “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights”, as well as the rights and freedoms of the individual, speech, conscience, security, resistance to oppression proclaimed in other articles (all these are “natural, sacred and inalienable rights of man”, as said in the Declaration) look like a kind of quotations from philosophical writings. The main values ​​of the liberation struggle - Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood - were substantiated in philosophical and legal writings, in works of literature and art. It is noteworthy that many philosophers of the Enlightenment are also outstanding writers, playwrights, creators of philosophically rich literary works.

To the values ​​of Freedom, Equality and Fraternity one should add Reason, the cult of which begins precisely in the 18th century. In this respect, the philosophy of the Enlightenment is both the successor to the rationalism of the 17th century and the forerunner of the rationalism of the 19th century. Orientation towards science and admiration for its outstanding achievements were effectively embodied in the edition of the Encyclopedia, or explanatory dictionary sciences, arts and crafts ”D" Alembert and Diderot. It was a grandiose generalization of the economic, political, but above all cultural, intellectual experience of mankind accumulated by the 18th century - of course, “viewed” through the prism of enlightenment views. We can say that "Encyclopedia" objectively embodied the human mind. Its authors believed that the key to profound social change is the Enlightenment of the people, combined with the will of the enlightened educators. The "Encyclopedia", according to the idea of ​​its creators, was supposed to contribute to both. It was assumed, of course, that the rulers and the people will be able to come to an agreement, to peacefully resolve the accumulated social problems.

The French Revolution was able to advance the cause of people's freedom and the fundamental transformations of economic, political, state-legal life that followed in Napoleonic times, the radical "cultural revolution". On the other hand, the revolution became a bloody event, accompanied by violence, repression, persecution of people for their origin and beliefs. Revolutionary terror thus contrasted sharply with the revolution's declared values ​​of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, and Reason. Lack of freedom, inequality, hatred and distrust of each other, unreason turned out to be the companions of the revolution. This made thinking people different countries of the land, which at first perceived the slogans and events of the revolution with sympathy and even enthusiasm, to deeply rethink its cumulative experience, and at the same time, the achievements and errors of the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Among them were those who were destined to become the philosophical glory of Germany - Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel. German philosophy in the 18th century this is also the age of Kant. And yet there are many reasons to consider his critical philosophy - critical in relation to the Enlightenment - especially, without forgetting how much the Enlighteners, especially Rousseau, meant to Kant.

The next thing to pay attention to is that the main philosophical ideas about nature, history, and man were not the property of philosophy alone, but expressed the prevailing principles, ideals, values ​​of the culture of that era, embracing several centuries. In order to summarize what has been done by classical modern philosophy and understand the essence of the further clash of “non-classical” thinking with the principles of philosophical classics, let us turn to the problem of reason. This choice is not accidental: the problem of reason is the core of modern philosophy. Philosophers of that era came to a broad interpretation of reason, believing that nature, history, human activity are driven by their inherent "reasonableness".

To reason about reason meant, therefore, to analyze the fundamental problems of philosophy. True, back in the 18th century. philosophers most often understood “mind” as one of the cognitive abilities inherent in man, thanks to which he thinks, forms concepts, and operates with them. In rational activity, they singled out two aspects - mental activity based on experience, that is, thinking through reasoning, proof, calculation, etc., and the activity of thought that surpasses experience. The first was called reason, and the second, respectively, reason. Sometimes the unity of reason and reason was called intellect. The dispute of the philosophers of the New Age about the great possibilities, but also the considerable limitations of the human mind, testified that many of them were critical of reason (recall Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"). The fact that the philosophers of modern times understood the mind broadly, meaning not only the rational ability of man, may seem surprising to today's reader. Is there any other reason than the special thinking-cognitive ability of a particular person with all its advantages and limitations?

In the history of thought, a broader interpretation of the mind has arisen because there really is a complex problem that goes beyond the "individual mind". In classical thought of the 18th and 19th centuries. along with the criticism of reason as an individual ability, there was a growing tendency to glorify non-individual reason. Its products and forms (ideas, concepts, theories, ideals, norms, values) are separated from the individual, they exist within the boundaries of human culture. With the help of individual and non-individual forms of spiritual activity, a person masters the world, comprehends it and at the same time, as it were, “doubles” the world of thought. This was the real basis of theological, idealistic concepts of the “divine” mind or assertions that some absolute spirit, a higher mind controls the development of the world, idealism (a philosophical doctrine that affirms the primacy of consciousness, spirit, thinking over matter derived from them, nature and all physical ). In philosophy, the cult of reason arose and was affirmed (understood in the second, broad sense). And this happened because philosophical science sensitively captured and expressed the mindset, the values ​​of its era.

The cult of reason, which philosophy proclaimed, was a kind of ideological consolidation and stimulation of the widespread belief in the possibility of reorganizing life on the basis of Reason, by which, first of all, the ideals of Freedom, Equality, and Brotherhood were understood. In order to fulfill the grandiose tasks assigned to it, knowledge, according to classical philosophers, must be clear, conclusive, overcoming doubts, brought into a logically coherent system. Between such knowledge and the outside world there is an internal consistency. For in the world surrounding a person, according to the classical worldview, a hidden internal - reasonable - order reigns, which can be discovered in principle by the human mind if it finds “simple clear rules” (R. Descartes) of knowledge and evidence, i.e. finds the right method knowledge.

Not only the problems of the surrounding world, cognition, knowledge, method of cognition, but also questions about God, faith and religion were supposed to be interpreted rationally. The eloquent title of one of the works of I. Kant - "Religion within the limits of only reason" - allows us to understand the direction of these philosophical reflections. Classical philosophers shared the conviction that universal humanistic ideals and principles, primarily the ideal of freedom and the principle of the dignity of the human person, can and should be rationally known and recognized. Philosophy was charged with the duty, as it were, to build on the building of practice, science, culture with the uppermost floors - theoretical reflections about the universal linked into a system: about holistic being, about man and his universal essence, about society as such, about universally valid principles and methods of cognition, about universal , significant for all people and at all times, the norms of morality. Questions about the individual, the separate - for example, about individual people, their freedom, rights, thoughts, suffering - were also raised, but they were subordinated to the question of essence, of the universal (about a person as such, about the essence of a person). Of course, in the philosophical classics there were teachings that, as it were, fell out of the general picture. For example, classical rationalism in a broad sense was opposed - and sometimes even interspersed as elements - mystical, agnostic, skeptical mindsets. But in modern times, even skepticism (a philosophical position characterized by doubt about the existence of any reliable criterion of truth) retained faith in science, was generally a rationalist movement. The main thing was that until the middle of the XIX century. ideological movements that differed from rationalism, and even more so opposed to it, did not play a noticeable role. In the second half of the 19th century, the situation changed.

15. Social philosophy of the XVII-XVII centuries. (Theories of "social contract").

The creation of new social models in the French Enlightenment is focused on the social contract, the principles of which were developed primarily by J.-J. Rousseau. It has already been said that social contract theories begin to take shape in the 17th century. Next, 18th century passes them through the prism of the concept of civil society. Let us remember: the starting point for the construction of social programs for all educators was a person as natural creature, i.e. isolated, atomized individual. Most enlighteners believed that at the initial stage, in the so-called state of nature, people lived outside of society and, as a result, had unlimited rights and absolute freedom. Very soon, however, they realized that they did not need such freedom and that it was much more profitable to voluntarily limit their exorbitant claims than to enter into a "war of all against all" (as T. Hobbes put it). Thus, the arguments of rational egoism impel people to the conclusion of a social contract when they pass to the stage of a social or, in the language of Rousseau, a civil state. This model, which is generally accepted by all enlighteners, found its most adequate expression in the work of J.-J. Rousseau "On the Social Contract" (1762). His ideas had a huge impact on the revolutionaries, especially the Jacobins, and many of his provisions became reality just in the course of the revolution. It's about, in particular, on the right of the people to terminate an unjust treaty and overthrow the monarchy, on the inalienability of popular sovereignty, on the rights and duties of deputies, on the need for the cult of the Supreme Being, and finally on the legitimacy of introducing short-term dictatorial rule.

To characterize the rights and obligations of citizens, Rousseau finds clear and expressive definitions here, many of which, in a slightly modified form, will be included in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen in 1789 and even later in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1948. History has confirmed Rousseau's insight in developing a democratic agenda for civil society.

Considering the process of the emergence of the social or civil state, Rousseau pays special attention to the fact that, as he thinks, the original contract turned out to be untrue, because the rich seized power and the advantages associated with it by force and cunning. The need of the era is to break the old one and conclude a new, now fair agreement. As one of the means of achieving it, Rousseau admits a revolution and even, in those exceptional cases when the fatherland is in danger, a dictatorship. It was to these provisions that the Jacobins appealed. But Rousseau's main attention is still given to the laws of building a civil society, in connection with which the principles of popular sovereignty, general will, etc. are being developed.

Rousseau emphasizes that in its content a true social contract is always republican in character (as an expression of the general will), despite the fact that the form of government can be different: either aristocratic, or oligarchic, or democratic. For small states, democracy is more acceptable, for large ones, aristocracy, but the best is a mixed government. The most essential thing in concluding a social contract, according to Rousseau, is that the sovereignty of the people is established, which is indivisible and inalienable. Behind these characteristics lies Rousseau's conviction that power should belong to the people alone, that it cannot be alienated from it, that is, that only the people can accept or reject laws. This is the general will. Here Rousseau introduces into his theory what has for him great value distinction between the "general will" and the "will of all".

The fact is that each member of society can (and has every right to do so) to pursue his private interests and act as a private person. In this case, the interests of all members of society are different (sometimes even opposite), and the "will of all" is a certain arithmetic mean sum of them. The common will expresses the unity of interests of all participants in the social contract, which in this case act as citizens; it is now about political, public, and not private life. "Often there is a considerable difference between the will of all and the general will," writes Rousseau. And if the opposition of private interests made it necessary to establish society, then it is precisely the agreement of interests that makes its continued existence possible. "It is not so much the number of votes that makes the will common, but the general interest." “I affirm, therefore,” continues Rousseau, “that sovereignty, which is only the exercise of the general will, can never be alienated, and that the sovereign, which is nothing but a collective being, can be represented only by itself. Power can be transferred, but not will.

Popular sovereignty is a complex and rather dissected concept; Rousseau has in mind, first of all, the acts of passing laws by the people. Two difficulties arise here, which Rousseau fails to solve to the end. The first is connected with the actual holding of a plebiscite, which is necessary for the adoption of laws. And Rousseau, sparing no effort, making numerous historical excursions, proves that, as once in Rome, the whole people can really gather in forums for the purpose of legislative activity. For states with a large number of citizens, this would, of course, be an extremely difficult matter, but Rousseau (in an era when there was no television, no mass press, no modern referendum system) was sure that "it is possible to gather the people into one assembly ". Of course, this is easier to do in smaller states. Another difficulty arises in connection with the fact that it is not he himself who proposes laws to the people (although only the people accept or reject them), but the legislator, whose figure is close to that of an enlightened monarch and, moreover, has an almost divine nature. After all, the legislator must know all human passions - and at the same time be free from them; he should have almost unlimited power - and should not want to use it. At this point, not only the democratic, but also the elitist orientation of Rousseau's views is clearly visible.

True, Rousseau again and again emphasizes that only the people who obey the laws can be their creator, that only the one who enters the association is supposed to determine the conditions of community life. Moreover, an agreement between members of society is not an agreement between a higher and lower, but an agreement of the Whole with each of its members, “a legal agreement, because it is based on the Social Contract; fair, because it is common to all; useful, since it cannot have another purpose other than the common good.

At this point, Rousseau returns to the starting point of his sociological concept - to the social contract, considered, however, from a new angle, namely, as a civil society, or a civil state. Rousseau clearly saw the fact of the discrepancy between the state and civil society. The state acts as governing bodies, power structures; civil status is only a structure of the social contract, but this "only" is crucial to the building of a democratic society. The fact is that power always belongs to some ruling social group or ruling party, which expresses the interests of one specific stratum, but acts on behalf of the whole people, the whole society. And as such, it seeks to subjugate the individual. If the "leviathan" aspirations of the state are not limited, the state will become totalitarian, and, consequently, the individual will be absorbed by it. The only remedy against this is the creation of a civil society based on an agreement between all its members.

It is very important to understand that a social contract is nothing more than the agreement of all its participants to observe certain general rules: in pursuing their own interests, everyone must take into account the interests of others, therefore, it is required to limit their own freedom for the sake of the freedom of others; it must be admitted that private property is a necessary condition for community life, and the rights of the individual are sacred and inalienable, and so on. All these beliefs are based on the notion of a sovereign individual, they must all become realities of everyday life, reproduced at every moment of the existence of civil society, and not at all the initial conditions of the original contract that have gone into the historical past. "In civil society, the original right (and - the meaning of all other rights - freedom of speech, assembly, rallies, movement ...) is the right of a sovereign individual - in a social contract with other equally sovereign individuals - to form, form ... society , the economy, the state. Eternally and democratically only that modern society which preserves in its roots the democratic right of its citizens to anew, initially, initially generate and contractually consolidate their own legal structures. Only then does the path of revolution become unnecessary. Treaty, not overthrow; delegation (voluntary) of their rights, but not receiving them as a gift - these are the roots of the rule of law, constantly preserved and revived in civil society.

The 17th century is a fundamentally new page in the history of Europe. There are dramatic changes in all spheres of life. With the development of capitalism, a new social structure of society is taking shape. Agrarian relations cease to be dominant social relations. European civilization is moving into the industrial phase of its development. Cardinal changes in the spiritual, ideological sphere. Science, as a special way of human cognition of the world, acquires independence, seeks to form a scientific worldview and a scientific picture of the world. The accumulation of scientific knowledge that has been going on for centuries has borne fruit. The place of philosophy is also changing. She sees her role not so much in metaphysical constructions as in solving epistemological and methodological problems of science, as well as in rethinking the place, role and functions of the state, society and man. The religious outlook is also changing. Theism and providentialism finally give way to pantheism and deism (Deism is a theory according to which God, having created the world, gave it the opportunity to develop freely).

Mathematics and natural sciences, especially physics, are rapidly developing, and science is becoming established in the true sense of the word.

Thinkers of modern times were interested in the problems of cognition and scientific methodology. In philosophy, interest shifted from ontology to epistemology. A subject-object model of cognition S → O (subject - person, object - world) has developed. The idea of ​​God in the works of philosophers gradually fades into the background, but continues to be in demand, especially in the 17th century.

Within the framework of epistemology (the doctrine of knowledge), two currents of the philosophy of the new time have developed:

Rationalism- It was believed that the source of truth is the mind. (Rene Descartes, Benedict Spinoza, Leibniz)

Empiricism (sensualism) - believed that the source of true knowledge is sensory experience. It was believed that there is nothing in the mind that was not originally in the senses. (John Locke, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes)

Philosophy of empiricism .

Supporters of empiricism (Bacon, Hobbes, Locke) argued that the main source of reliable knowledge about the world is human sensations and experience. This position is most detailed in the work of Bacon.
Bacon was a supporter of empirical methods of knowledge (observation, experiment). He considered philosophy an experimental science based on observation, and its subject should be the surrounding world, including man himself. Supporters of empiricism urged to rely in everything on the data of experience, human practice.

Empiricism- a cognitive-theoretical direction in philosophy, which derives all knowledge from sensory experience (empiricism). From the point of view of methodology - the principle, based on which all science, moreover, all life practice and morality, should be based on sensory experience.

Empiricism is divided:

To radical (recognizes only sensory perceptions);

Moderate (gives a decisive role to sensory perceptions).

The first and main researcher of nature in modern times was the English philosopher Francis Bacon(1561–1626). This philosopher became the founder of English empiricism, showed the way for the development of natural sciences.

In his research, he embarked on the path of sensory experience and drew attention to the exceptional significance and necessity of observations and experiments to discover the truth. He argued that philosophy should be primarily practical. Bacon considered the only reliable method of cognition to be induction, leading to the knowledge of laws.

He called the supreme goal of science the dominance of man over nature, and "one can dominate nature only by obeying its laws."

The path that leads to knowledge is observation, analysis, comparison and experiment.

The scientist must, according to Bacon, go in his research from the observation of single facts to broad generalizations, i.e., apply the inductive method of cognition.

In his treatise The New Organon, Bacon proposed a new understanding of the tasks of science. It was he who became the founder new science- the methodology of experimental natural science, which he claimed as a guarantee of the future power of man. If this methodology is followed, a rich harvest of scientific discoveries can be reaped. But sensory experience can give reliable knowledge only when the consciousness is free from false "ghosts":

- “ghosts of the family” are errors that arise from the fact that a person judges nature by analogy with people's lives;

- "ghosts of the cave" - ​​these are errors of an individual nature, which depend on the upbringing, tastes, habits of individuals;

- "ghosts of the market" - these are the habits of using walking ideas and opinions in judging the world without a critical attitude towards them;

It is interesting to note that Bacon was a deeply religious man. According to the philosopher, science, like water, has either the heavenly spheres or the earth as its source. It consists of two types of knowledge:

The first is inspired by God (theology);

The second originates from the senses (philosophy).

Bacon believed that truth has a dual character: there is religious truth and "secular" truth. At the same time, he strictly delimited the spheres of competence of these types of truth. Theology is oriented towards the explanation of God, but in vain is the attempt of man to reach an understanding of God by the natural light of reason. Faith in God is achieved through revelation, while "secular" truth is comprehended by experience and reason.

F. Bacon.

Francis Bacon was an English philosopher, founder of the empirical (experimental) direction of philosophy. The essence of Bacon's philosophical ideas is that experience is the basis of knowledge. The more experience humanity has accumulated, the closer it is to true knowledge. True knowledge, according to Bacon, cannot be an end in itself. The main tasks of experience and knowledge are to help a person achieve practical results in his activities, to promote new inventions, the development of the economy, and the domination of man over nature. Philosophical credo of Bacon: Knowledge is power.

Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626) developed a doctrine of philosophy based on empirical knowledge and formulated the idea of ​​a universal reform of human knowledge based on the establishment of an experimental method of research and discovery.

Francis Bacon believed that all the problems of society can be solved on the basis of scientific and technological progress. Criticized scholasticism, urged to analyze things. Major works: "New Organon of Sciences" (the old "Organon" was written by Aristotle), "New Atlantis".

He substantiated the inductive concept of scientific knowledge, which is based on experience and experiment, as well as a certain methodology for their analysis and generalization. Scientific knowledge, according to Bacon, results from purposefully organized experience.

Francis Bacon distinguishes 2 types of experiments:

1. Fruitful (bring direct benefit to a person),
2. Luminous (lead to new knowledge).

The doctrine of induction- scientific and theoretical generalization of knowledge.

Induction must produce division and selection in the experiment by the necessary exceptions and formulate conclusions. Induction- the logical path of the movement of thought, characterizing the transition of knowledge from a particular position to a more general one. Deduction- vice versa - from general provisions to private. Example of induction: three monkeys are white - hence all monkeys are white. An example of deduction: monkeys are multi-colored - therefore, there are white, black, red monkeys, etc.

The means of induction, according to Bacon, are intended to reveal the "forms and simple properties" or "nature" into which all physical bodies are decomposed. It is necessary to investigate not gold, air, water, but their density, gravity, temperature. Induction must follow strictly defined rules, according to the algorithm. Bacon underestimated the role of hypotheses and the possibilities of the hypothetical-deductive method in science. Since experience, which is not preceded by any theoretical idea, does not exist.

The Truth According to Bacon- this is an accurate display of objects and natural phenomena. Delusion is a distortion of the mirror image of reality.

The path leading to knowledge is observation, analysis, comparison and experiment. The scientist must go from observing isolated facts to broad generalizations, i.e. apply the inductive method of cognition.
Bacon laid the foundations of a new science - experimental natural science. But experience can give reliable knowledge only when the mind is free from false ghosts - errors arising from the fact that a person judges nature by analogy with the life of people.

Truth is distorted by "idols"(false ideas, prejudices):

1. Idols of the "kind" - due to human feelings and reason. Sensory cognition is imperfect (i.e. sense organs),
2. Idols of the "cave" - ​​each person has his own "cave", which mislead him (individual characteristics of character, upbringing, human psyche). A person may inadequately perceive objective reality. Collective experience can fix this,
3. Idols of the "square" - misuse of words (especially in markets and squares). Along with the language, we unconsciously assimilate the prejudices of past generations and find ourselves in the thrall of delusions.
4. Idols of the "theater" - many delusions are rooted in the uncritical assimilation of other people's thoughts, i.e. a person is often influenced by authorities.

All these idols can be overcome on the basis of the construction of a new science and the introduction of the inductive method. Bacon's doctrine of "idols" is an attempt to clear the mind of the researcher from scholasticism and promote the spread of knowledge.

from the Greek empeiria - experience) - a philosophical doctrine, a direction in epistemology, recognizing sensory experience as the only source of knowledge, underestimating the role of rational knowledge (theories, concepts); cf. rationalism.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

empiricism

EMPIRICISM(from the Greek. etslErkkh - experience) - a theoretical-cognitive position, according to which sensory experience is the source and justification of all knowledge. The first and historically most common form of E. is sensationalism. When in the early 20th century the impossibility of implementing the sensationalist program was revealed, it was replaced by other forms of E. At first it was an attempt to interpret perception, and after it - knowledge in general, in terms of "sense data". When this program also turned out to be unrealizable, experience was understood in the philosophy of logical E. as a set of protocol sentences using a “material language”, with the help of which, in space and time, these events related to physical things are directly described. Logical E. tried to reduce all knowledge to this experience in a complex way. All types of E. strive to show that knowledge that seems to be outside of experience is either a complex product of experience (logic, mathematics for D.S. Mill), or not knowledge, but a set of analytical statements that explicitly express some features of the language (logic, mathematics for logical E.), or nonsense (philosophical metaphysics for all representatives of E.). By the middle of the 20th century the impossibility of implementing the E. program in any of its forms was revealed. Firstly, it was shown that it is impossible to substantiate by purely empirical means the postulates of scientific inference underlying scientific research, as B. Russell wrote about (in particular, the rules of induction, the postulate of independent causal lines, the postulate of analogy, etc.). Second, after Quine's work, it became clear that the distinction between synthetic (experimental) and analytic (non-experiential) statements is conditional and relative. Experience cannot be "given", but is always laden with interpretation. In the case of scientific knowledge, this is a theoretical interpretation of empirical statements. Thirdly, within the framework of modern cognitive psychology, it has been shown that innate perceptual patterns and cognitive maps play an important role in the process of sensory perception. V.A. Lecture

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Questions of knowledge of processes, events and phenomena occurring around have always occupied a special place in human thinking. Mankind is ignorant of many and different things, which requires the application of the most various methods and skills to learn.

There are many different methods that are used to study processes and phenomena. Some can be very effective, others will reveal the object of study only from one side. Sometimes the application of some methods simply cannot be feasible due to their specifics, others can be used in practice. to study any problem. But it is better to combine methods, since this is how you can achieve the best result.

Even in ancient times, fundamental sciences appeared - physics, mathematics, history and philosophy. The basis of any science is study. That is why questions arose concerning the way of knowing the truth. As a result of the development of human thought, such currents as pragmatism, dogmatism and empiricism appeared.

This article will focus on empiricism and what place this movement occupies in philosophy. The definition of empiricism will also be considered.

For a start it's worth review the definition of empiricism, as well as to determine what the empiricism is, which underlies this trend.

If we first consider empiricism, then this is the designation of everything that is based on experience. That is, we are talking about the application of human activity in the course of research to obtain final results. The practice used for learning involves the use of experiments as methods that provide a result.

Empiricism, which is based on empiricism, means a certain direction in the theory of knowledge, which provides for recognition as a source of knowledge the sensory experience. Empiricism describes the content of knowledge as a description of the experience.

The current of empiricism is opposed to such currents as mysticism and rationalism. The empirical trend presupposes the absolutization of experience, its recognition as the best means of cognition. It is also worth noting the role of sensory cognition, which is recognized by empiricism as determining in the implementation of the study. How pure practical course, empiricism downplays the role of methods related to the rational flow - theoretical study problems and applications of calculations that do not require practical experience.

If we consider this direction from the side of metaphysics, then empiricism can cover a wide variety of points of view, sometimes affecting dogmatic systems of thought, and sometimes vice versa, it is transformed into skepticism. This is quite understandable. The reason for such a scatter of possible references of empiricism to different points of view is explained by the fact that many authors give their own interpretation of the concept of "experience". Empiricism opposes its provisions and basic ideas to the ideas of rationalism, exalting the natural experience and at the same time belittling the forms of rational thinking, which are given subjective significance. Empiricism and empiricism simply underestimate the theoretical role in the process of cognition.

Empirical and theoretical are two ways of cognition, or types of knowledge, which are considered canonical in the implementation of almost any research. They are qualitatively different from each other, having differences in essence, form of display and sense of display. objective reality. If the empirical reflects the existing reality in terms of its external relations and connections, then the theoretical comes out of the empirical, being a systematization of the materials collected during the study, while adhering to the principle of internal connections.

Key points

It should be noted the main tenets of empiricism:

Empirical Forms

Now it is worth mentioning two forms of empiricism that result from different interpretations of the concept of "experience".

There are two forms of empiricism:

1. Immanent empiricism - attempts by philosophers in different historical periods to provide explanations for the composition and lawfulness of human knowledge by combinations of individual ideas and sensations. Such philosophical attempts by different thinkers led to different consequences. Some have thus arrived at skepticism, others at the silent suggestion of the transcendent;
2. Transcendental empiricism - when mentioning this form of empirical direction, one should immediately indicate materialism, which is its most typical form. Materialism proclaims the reality of the so-called world of experience. From this point of view, the true reality is all kinds of combinations of particles of matter that move in space and at the same time interact. This is the whole world of experience. At the same time, the laws of cognition and the content of consciousness are the result of interaction human body with all manifestations of its environment.

If we talk about empiricism, then we should also mention the person who considers the founder of this trend in philosophy. It's about Francis Bacon. English philosopher, historian and politician. He is also the founder of English materialism.

Francis Bacon had his own point of view about the existence of the individual in reality. He also disagreed with many of the currents that were popular at that time. Since he was an adherent of the scientific approach to research, his disagreement with the scholastic considerations of some thinkers, which, in fact, were dogmatic blind beliefs, resulted in the creation of a new type of thinking, a new philosophical trend. Of course, we are talking about empiricism.

Bacon opposed scholastic thinking with the inductive method, which was based on a rational analysis of data obtained as a result of an experiment or observation of an object of study. The dogmatic deduction of the scholastics at that time was quite popular, but it could not fully resist the new inductive method. Empiricism quickly found its supporters.

It is Francis Bacon who is considered the author of the famous aphorism "Knowledge is power". The idea that science needs a new, empirical, method of cognition came to him because of the deplorable state of science at that time. Bacon believed that many discoveries were made by chance, since they did not have a research base. That is why he subsequently formed a new trend.

Francis Bacon (1561-1626).

The ancestor of empiricism, which has always had its adherents in Great Britain, was the English philosopher Francis Bacon. Like most Protestant thinkers, Bacon, considering the task of philosophy to create a new method of scientific knowledge, rethinks the subject and tasks of science, as it was understood in the Middle Ages. The purpose of scientific knowledge is to benefit the human race; Unlike those who saw science as an end in itself, Bacon emphasizes that science serves life and practice and finds its justification only in this. The common task of all sciences is to increase the power of man over nature.

Francis Bacon wrote a number of important philosophical works, the most significant of which were: "The Great Restoration of the Sciences" (1623), consisting of two parts - "On the Dignity and Increase of the Sciences" and "New Organon" - "On the Prosperity of the Sciences" (1605), Moral and Political Essays (1797), New Atlantis, History of Life and Death, Thoughts and Observations, Twelve Provisions on the Interpretation of Nature.

Summing up the state and development of his contemporary sciences, Bacon pays tribute to his predecessors, in particular to Aristotle, but at the same time clearly indicates that further progress in in-depth knowledge of nature can no longer be made on the old foundations. He owns the expressions: "Truth is the daughter of its time!", "Knowledge is power."

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).

Hobbes is a classic representative of nominalism (the doctrine according to which the names of properties, classes and relations are not proper names).

According to his teaching, only single things really exist, and general concepts are only names of things. All knowledge therefore has its source in experience; only one kind of experience, according to Hobbes, is perception, or primary knowledge, and the other is knowledge about the names of things. The source of this second experience is the mind, which is thus reduced to the faculty of naming things and linking names, i.e. correct use words. The object of philosophy Hobbes considers the body, the emergence of which we can comprehend with the help of scientific concepts. As for spiritual substances, even if they existed, according to Hobbes, they would be unknowable. But Hobbes denies their very existence, since he does not recognize incorporeal spirits.

Hobbes attached great importance science, since it is the only one that gives us the opportunity to foresee, therefore, to act effectively. Pointing to the undoubtedly positive consequences of the development of science in his time, and hence to technology, the well-being of people, Hobbes wrote: "Only philosophy is the culprit of all these acquisitions."

Among all the sciences, Hobbes singled out geometry, by the methods of which he considered it possible to present the entire system in the most convincing and accessible way for everyone. human knowledge. He recommended using the geometric, purely rationalistic method of presentation and proof of truth - and he himself used it fruitfully - in philosophical research.

Like Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes considered the creation of a new method of comprehending truth to be the most important task of philosophy. But unlike Bacon, Hobbes believes that only rational thinking - Logic - can be such a method. He writes: "We kindle the Mind with logic." For him, philosophical thinking coincides with rational, logical thinking. "Philosophy," he wrote, "is rational thinking."

Being a rationalist, Hobbes was at the same time a consistent materialist. Matter, according to his teaching, is the highest and only "substance", which is reflected in the consciousness of man.

Hobbes proves that by nature man is an unkind and evil being. He expressed his understanding of man in an aphorism that has become widely accepted in culture: “Homo homini lupus est” (Man is a wolf to man.)

John Locke (1632 - 1704).

Locke's main philosophical merit in the history of philosophical thought lies in the development and substantiation of his sensationalist theory of knowledge.

He argued that there is nothing in the mind that would not be in the sensations. The mind of a newborn, said the philosopher and educator, is the “Tabula rasa” (blank slate) on which experience records its feelings. All knowledge, according to Locke, is acquired from experience. Hence Locke, following his predecessors Francis Bacon, is called an empiricist.

In the very process of cognition, which always begins from sensation, Locke distinguished two types. The first of these comes from the external world through sensory perception. The second - internal, comes from the analysis of the accumulated experience in the human psyche. He calls the latter a reflective path of cognition, in which a person operates with elements already present in the mind (representations, concepts, ideas, concepts). Along with this, Locke admitted the possibility of knowing the world through intuition, which, as if in an abbreviated form, runs through both types of knowledge and "suddenly grasps" (sees) the truth. Proceeding from this, Locke divided the content of knowledge itself into sensory (sensitive) knowledge, which is obtained through sensations; demonstrative, which are extracted by the mind, and intuitive, as the highest and most convincing kind of knowledge for a person.

Locke recognized the existence of only single things and thus stood on the positions of nominalism. Representations and concepts are created by the mind from those elements with which it is supplied by the senses. But the feelings themselves give us adequate knowledge only about the primary qualities of objects and phenomena: about the spatial, temporal, material aspects of reality. Secondary qualities - bitter and sweet, warm and cold, sharp and dull, pleasant and unpleasant, and so on - are subjective and do not always correspond to the objective state of things and phenomena.