What is Truth? Examples of relative truth. Relative and absolute truth

Relative truth is incomplete, limited knowledge about the world. Due to the infinity of the world, the historical limitations of human knowledge, the achieved knowledge about the world and man is always incomplete and inaccurate. The relativity of knowledge should, in particular, be seen in the fact that they are always related to certain conditions, place and time.

Any knowledge by virtue of its concreteness is always relative.

Absolute truth is a complete and accurate knowledge of the subject, this is knowledge of the infinite world as a whole, in all its infinite richness and diversity.

Absolute truth is made up of relative, but the sum of relative truths is infinite, therefore, absolute truth is unattainable. A person constantly approaches the absolute truth, but he will never reach it, because the world is constantly changing. Knowing the absolute truth would stop the process of knowing.

Dialectics of concrete, relative, objective and absolute truth.

True knowledge, like the objective world itself, develops according to the laws of dialectics. In the Middle Ages, people believed that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth. Was it false or true? The fact that a person observed the movement while on the ground led to a false conclusion. Here we can see the dependence of our knowledge on the subject of knowledge. Copernicus argued that the center of the planetary system is the sun. Here the share of objective content is already greater, but by no means everything corresponded to objective reality. Kepler showed that the planets revolve around the sun not in circles, but in ellipses. This was even truer, truer knowledge. It is clear from these examples that objective truth develops historically. With each new discovery, its completeness increases.

The form of expression of objective truth, depending on specific historical conditions, is called relative. The entire development of human knowledge, including science, is a constant replacement of some relative truths with others that more fully and accurately express objective truth.

Can absolute truth be attained? Agnostics answer in the negative, saying that in the process of knowledge we are dealing only with relative truths. And the more complex the phenomenon, the more difficult it is to know the absolute truth. And yet it exists, each relative truth is a step that brings us closer to this goal.

Thus, relative and absolute truths are just different levels of the objective. The higher the level of our knowledge, the closer we come to the absolute truth. But this process can last endlessly. This constant process is the most important manifestation of dialectics in the process of cognition.

Truth and delusion.

I. Truth is an adequate, correct reflection of reality. The value of knowledge is determined by the measure of its truth. Achieving true knowledge is a complex and contradictory process. Naturally, it is possible to obtain different results along this path. A researcher, when it comes to the search for scientific truth, can not only arrive at the true result, but also go down the wrong path, be mistaken. Therefore, there is no line established once and for all between truth and error. The search for truth is an open process, it contains various possibilities, including the possibilities of incorrect, erroneous assessments of what is happening.

Delusion is such knowledge that does not correspond to the essence of the cognized object, but is recognized as true knowledge. It is a constant element in the development of science. People unconsciously accept this fact, that is, proceed from empirical experiences. An illustrative example of delusion is that the Sun moves around the Earth in the pre-Copernican period.

Delusion is not an absolute fiction, a play of the imagination, a figment of fantasy. Errors also reflect, however, one-sided, objective reality, have a real source, since any fiction contains threads of reality.

The reasons for the objective occurrence of delusions:

1) Historical practice, namely, the level of development of science at that time, inadequately perceived facts, their erroneous interpretation. Often, truth becomes a delusion if the boundaries of truth are not taken into account and a particular true concept applies to all areas of reality. Misconception can also be the result of incorrect information.

2) Freedom of choice in research methods. That is, the subject itself imposes a method, a research method, for example, inflation cannot be studied using the method of sensory cognition.

Delusion is different from lying in that it is unintentional.

In general, delusion is a natural moment of the cognitive process and is dialectically connected with truth. It is necessary to reckon with the possibility of delusions, without exaggerating or absolutizing them. Exaggerating the place of delusion in knowledge can lead to skepticism and relativism. Prominent Russian physicist, Nobel Prize laureate P. L. Kapitsa noted: “... mistakes are a dialectical way to search for truth. You should never exaggerate their harm and diminish their benefits. "

Therefore, truth is opposed not so much by error as by falsehood as a deliberate elevation to the rank of truth.

As the practice of mankind has shown, delusion is an integral element of the search for truth. Until one reveals the truth, a hundred will be deluded. And in this sense, delusion is an undesirable but legitimate cost to the attainment of truth.

II. Scientific knowledge in its essence is impossible without clashes of different opinions, beliefs, just as it is impossible without errors. Errors are often made in the course of observation, measurement, calculations, judgments, assessments.

Error.

A mistake is a discrepancy between knowledge and reality.

Unlike delusion, a mistake is recognized and committed for subjective reasons:

1) Low qualification of a specialist, 2) Inattention, 3) Haste.

Lie.

III. Lie. Deception. This is a deliberate distortion of reality. That is, the statement that the sun rotates, and not the earth, from the point of view of modern astronomy, is false.

Feature: Lies are targeted in nature (either they deceive an individual person, or the whole society).

Here knowledge is intentionally or unintentionally, unconsciously distorted, since such a distortion is useful to certain social groups and individuals to achieve group and personal goals, maintain power, achieve victory over the enemy or justify their own activities. First of all, this concerns knowledge related to socio-historical reality and directly affecting the issues of worldview, ideology, politics, etc.

A lie can be both an invention about what was not, and a conscious concealment of what was. Logically incorrect thinking can also be a source of lies.

For example, the firm "Ivanov and Company" advertises a remedy that infects pathogenic bacteria, but at the same time is silent about the contraindications of this remedy. As a result, the harm from taking this medicine outweighs the benefit; NPP designers concealed the possibility of the Chernobyl effect, and not just a few, but hundreds of thousands of people are suffering.

Distinguish:

1) Blatant lie, that is, intentional. She's the closest thing to cheating.

2) Lies of silence, concealment.

3) Half-truths, some are true, but not all. Sometimes it is done on purpose, sometimes unconsciously (perhaps out of ignorance).

Unlike delusion, a lie is a moral and legal phenomenon, and therefore the attitude towards lies should be different than towards delusion.

Truth and truth.

IV. Truth is the conviction of a person in the truth, it is the correspondence between the statements of the subject and his thoughts. Truth is based on truth, but not reducible to it. That is, there may be one truth, but each has its own truth. And the truth is not always an adequate expression of the whole truth. It can act as a special case of truth.

They say that Solomon, having listened to the parties involved in the dispute, declared that each of them was right. He is right as the bearer of his truth.

The problem of the relationship between truth and truth is solved through the determination of the measure of truth. So, from the point of view of a soldier or officer of the federal troops, the war in Chechnya is the defense of the integrity of Russia. And it is true. From the Chechen's point of view, the war in Chechnya is the defense of his home. And this is also true. But in both cases, this is part of the truth. As for the complete truth, the Chechen phenomenon of confrontation is a commercial war of profit for some and impoverishment of others, the dubious happiness of some and the inconsolable grief of others.

Social philosophy

Society.

Society - 1) a social form of matter, the substrate functional unit of which is a person.

2) a part of the material world isolated from nature, which is a historically developing life activity of people.

3) a complex group of people, united by various types of social ties, due to the specific features of existence for a given society.

Society as a system consists of spheres of public life.

Human.

A person is a material and social being, a unit of society with an individual social essence. The essence of a person lies in generic characteristics - work and reason.

The essential forces of man. 2 concepts:

1) universal; 2) social.

Essence is the most essential, the most important thing in the subject, its qualitative distinctive characteristic. In general philosophical terms: man is a social universal material being. Social - a person has supernatural properties; universal - all properties of the world are inherent in man. In the socio-philosophical plane: a person is a social material generic being (similar to the universal BUT, the generic concept reveals that a person has inherent properties that each individual possesses: in each person the human race is represented. In a sense, the individual and the genus are identical.).

Essence (difference from nature).

1. The unity of the generic and the individual.

2. It manifests itself in a special human existence: the production of one's own life, a generic individual essence through the transformation of nature. The unity of man with the world and with other individuals is revealed.

Essence levels:

I. Actual (real): work, thought (consciousness), communication, freedom and responsibility, individuality and collectivity.

II.Potential. There is an opportunity that could be realized. These are: abilities and needs (to the current level).

The essence of a person is divided into:

a) people are biosocial beings - this is not correct, we are physico-chemical-biological beings.

b) why are the 2 principles of social and biological equal, it is not so.

2) A person is a subject, a person is both thinking and action, a being, matter can also be designated as a subject, a person is also an object, i.e. what its essence is directed to. (The most correct definition of Orlov). Man is a creature that produces himself and his own essence. Chel is a substance, because he is the cause of himself. Man is a social being. He cannot exist alone. The human essence is the unity of the generic and the individual. Generic is characteristic of every person, of all mankind in general. Generic traits in our country exist only through real individuals. THEN. the essence of people is individualized, it has 2 sides: asubstantial and relational

3) Many Soviet philosophers said that the essence of man is the totality of all general relations - this was written by Marx - incorrectly. Man is an objective being, substance and + people communicate, it is also a set of relations, but not separately - all together - gives us the essence of man.

The problem of social support and social functions. A person has his own functions (work, consciousness, communication); these functions are carried out by the substrate. The human, social substrate is me, you, us, he, she, they. In the essence of man, there is social being and social consciousness (the consciousness of society). Social being is the co-existence of individuals, real life processes. It is not perceived by the senses. His understanding is only at a theoretical level. In social life there are 2 sides: 1-we ourselves - has a social quality.

2-substance elements of society, these are transformed natural elements included in the elements of society (buildings, cars ...), but there is no composite social quality here, they or yavl. only because material elements are associated with people.

The crisis nature of human existence has exacerbated three fundamental questions of human existence - about the essence of man, the way and meaning of his being, the prospects for further development.

Individual.

An individual is a single representative of the human race (it can be distinguished by generic characteristics - primitive communal, etc.).

What determines the nature of social relations - an individual or a society?

1) The individual creates his own social circumstance;

2) A person depends on social circumstances.

There are 2 opposite definitions of the Individual:

The individual is regarded as an individual, as a unique person.

The individual is like a person in general.

Both definitions are one-sided and insufficient. It is necessary to develop a 3rd ODA, covering the previous two. An individual as a collection of individuals or people. Or as the unity of the general and all the diversity of the particular.

Society is people and their relationship to each other. In one whole society and people are united by human activity in various forms, and above all material and production. The question arises whether the individual determines the nature of the life of society or society determines the characteristics of the individual. The statement of the question is incorrect, -> we introduce the third formula: people create social circumstances to the same extent as social circumstances create people, i.e. people create others. and ourselves. Personality is understood as a person who is not like other people (in everyday life). It is necessary to give other positive ODA. First, every individual is a person. Each person has some kind of unity in common and diversity of the particular. The closer a person is to his human race, the higher his personal potential. The more the diversity of human abilities is represented in the individual, the higher his personal potential. The born child is an individual, but not a human individuality (personality), which is determined by the independence of being in society. The individual and society are in a dialectically interrelated relationship. They cannot be opposed, since the individual is a social being and every manifestation of his life is a manifestation of societies. life. But it is also impossible to identify the Individual and the Social, because each individual can also act as an original individuality.

Personality.

Personality is the integration of socially significant qualities realized in a certain way in an individual.

If the concept of individuality brings a person's activity to the measure of originality and uniqueness, versatility and harmony, naturalness and ease, then the concept of personality emphasizes in it a consciously volitional principle. The more an individual deserves the right to be called a personality, the more clearly he realizes the motives of his behavior and the more strictly he controls him, subordinating him to a single life strategy.

The word "personality" (from Lat. Persona) originally denoted a mask worn by an actor in an ancient theater (cf. Russian "mask"). Then it began to mean the actor himself and his role (character). The Romans used the word "persona" only to indicate a certain social function, role, role (the personality of the father, the personality of the king, judge, prosecutor, etc.). Having turned into a term, into a general expression, the word "personality" significantly changed its meaning and even began to express something opposite to what was meant by it in antiquity. Personality is a person who does not play the role he has chosen, in no sense is a "play-actor". The social role (say, the role of the healer, researcher, artist, teacher, father) is taken absolutely seriously by him; he assigns it to himself as a mission, like a cross - freely, but willingly, to bear the full responsibility associated with this role.

The concept of personality makes sense only in the system of social mutual recognition, only where one can speak of a social role and a set of roles. At the same time, however, it presupposes not the originality and diversity of the latter, but, first of all, the individual's specific understanding of his role, the internal attitude to it, free and interested (or, on the contrary, forced and formal) execution of it.

A person as an individual expresses himself in productive actions, and his actions interest us only to the extent that they receive an organic objective embodiment. The opposite can be said about personality: it is the actions that are interesting in it. The very accomplishments of the individual (for example, labor achievements, discoveries, creative successes) are interpreted by us primarily as actions, that is, deliberate, arbitrary behavioral acts. Personality is the initiator of a sequential series of life events, or, as MM Bakhtin precisely defined, "the subject of action." The dignity of the individual is determined not so much by how much a person succeeded, whether he succeeded or failed, but by what he took under his responsibility, what he allows himself to be imputed.

The semantic similarity of the terms "individuality" and "personality" leads to the fact that they are often used as unambiguous, substituting for each other. At the same time (and this is the main thing), the concepts of individuality and personality fix different aspects of human self-regulation.

The essence of this difference is already grasped by ordinary language. We tend to associate the word "personality" with such epithets as "bright" and "original". As for the personality, we would like to say "strong", "energetic", "independent". In individuality, we note its originality, in personality rather independence, or, as the psychologist S.L. face "and since even in the most difficult life trials he does not lose this face.

Similar information.

Absolute and relative truth- philosophical concepts that reflect the historical process of cognition of objective reality. In contrast to metaphysics, which proceeds from the premise of the immutability of human knowledge and accepts any truth once and for all, a ready-made result of cognition, dialectical materialism considers cognition as a historical protest of movement from ignorance to the banner, "from knowledge of individual phenomena, individual aspects of reality to a deeper and a complete ZEZVI, to the discovery of more and more new laws of development.
The process of cognizing the world and its laws is as endless as the development of nature and society. Our knowledge at each given stage of development of science is determined by the historically achieved level of knowledge, the level of development of technology, industry, etc. As knowledge and practice further develop, human ideas about nature deepen, refine, and improve.

Because of this, the truths learned by science at a particular historical stage cannot be considered final, complete. They are, of necessity, relative truths, that is, truths in need of "further development, further verification and refinement. Thus, the atom was considered indivisible until the beginning of the 20th century, when it was proved that it, in turn, consists of electrons and runs The electronic theory of the structure of matter represents the deepening and expansion of our knowledge about matter.Modern ideas about the atom differ significantly in their depth from those that arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Our knowledge about (see) has especially deepened. But even what is now known to science regarding the structure of matter is not the last and final truth: “... dialectical materialism insists on the temporary, relative, approximate nature of all these landmarks in the knowledge of nature by the progressing science of man. The electron is as inexhaustible as the atom, nature is infinite ... ".

Truths are also relative in the sense that they are filled with concrete historical content, and therefore changes in historical conditions inevitably lead to changes in truth. What is true in some historical conditions ceases to be true in other conditions. So, for example, the position of Marx and Engels about the impossibility of the victory of socialism in one country was correct during the period of pre-monopoly capitalism. Under imperialism, this position ceased to be correct - Lenin created a new theory of the socialist revolution, the theory of the possibility of building socialism in one or several countries and the impossibility of its simultaneous victory in all countries.

Emphasizing the relative nature of scientific truths, dialectical materialism at the same time believes that each relative truth means a step in the knowledge of absolute truth, that every step of scientific knowledge contains elements of an absolute, that is, complete, truth that cannot be refuted in the future. There is no impassable line between relative and absolute truth. The totality of relative truths in their development gives the absolute truth. Dialectical materialism recognizes the relativity of all our knowledge, not in the sense of denying truth, but only in the sense that we cannot at any given moment know it to the end, exhaust it all. This thesis of dialectical materialism about the nature of relative truths is of fundamental importance. The development of sciences leads to the fact that more and more new concepts and ideas about the external world are constantly emerging, which replace some old, obsolete concepts and ideas.

Idealists use this inevitable and natural moment in the process of cognition to prove the impossibility of the existence of objective truth, in order to push through an idealistic invention that the external material world does not exist, that the world is only a complex of sensations. Since truths are relative, say the idealists, it means that they are nothing more than subjective ideas and arbitrary constructions of man; it means that there is nothing behind the sensations of a person, no objective world, or we cannot know anything about it. This charlatan trick of idealists is widely used in modern bourgeois philosophy with the aim of replacing science with religion, fideism. Dialectical materialism exposes the tricks of the idealists. The fact that this truth cannot be considered final, complete, testifies not to the fact that it does not reflect the objective world, is not an objective truth, but that this process of reflection is complex, depends on the historically existing level of development of science, that the absolute truth cannot be immediately known.

An enormous contribution to the elaboration of this question belongs to Lenin, who exposed the efforts of the Machists to reduce the recognition of relative truth to a denial of the external world and objective truth, to a denial of absolute truth. “The contours of the picture are historically conventional (ie, the picture of nature described by science. - Ed.), But it is certain that this picture depicts an objectively existing model. Historically, it is conditional when and under what conditions we advanced in our knowledge of the essence of things to the discovery of alizarin in coal tar or to the discovery of electrons in the atom, but it is certain that each such discovery is a step forward of "unconditionally objective knowledge." In a word, any ideology is historically conventional, but it is certain that any scientific ideology (as opposed to, for example, religious) corresponds to objective truth, absolute nature. "

Therefore, the recognition of absolute truth is the recognition of the existence of the external objective world, the recognition that our knowledge reflects objective truth. To recognize objective, that is, independent of man and mankind, truth, teaches Marxism, means one way or another to recognize absolute truth. The whole point is only that this absolute truth is cognized in parts, in the course of the progressive development of human knowledge. “Human thinking by its nature is capable of giving and gives us absolute truth, which is the sum of relative truths. Each step in the development of science adds new seeds to this sum of absolute truth, but the limits of the truth of each scientific position are relative, being then expanded, and narrowed by further growth in knowledge. "

- the concept of truth, both in antiquity and in modern philosophy, is recognized as the most important characteristic of human thinking in its relation to its subject.

In the theory of knowledge, for thousands of years, forms of truth have been distinguished: relative and absolute.

Modern philosophy

In modern science, absolute truth is understood as such knowledge that is identical to its subject and therefore cannot be refuted with the further development of knowledge. This is a complete, exhaustive, actual and never completely conceptually attainable knowledge about an object (a complex material system or the world as a whole).

At the same time, an idea of truth can be given to a person by the results of cognition of individual aspects of the objects under study (statement of facts, which is not identical with absolute knowledge of the entire content of these facts); -final knowledge of certain aspects of reality, depending on certain conditions; - knowledge that is confirmed in the process of further knowledge; Whereas relative truth is true, but incomplete knowledge about the same subject. In any scientific absolute truth, you can find elements of relativity, and in the relative line of absoluteness. In addition, scientific truth is always dynamic, since it is always conditioned by something: a number of reasons, conditions, factors. They can be changed, supplemented and so on. So any true knowledge in science is determined by the nature of the object to which it belongs, by the conditions of place, time; situation, historical framework. That is, we are talking about conditioned truth. The recognition of only the relative in objective truth threatens with relativism, the exaggeration of a stable moment - dogmatism. Scientific true conditioned knowledge - cannot spread beyond the limits of its actual applicability, outside the permissible conditions. Otherwise, it becomes a delusion. For example, 2 + 2 = 4 is only true decimal.
Thus, in science, they speak of various properties of one non-dual truth, such as objectivity and subjectivity, absoluteness and relativity, abstractness and concreteness (conditioning by specific characteristics). All these are not different "sorts" of truths, but one and the same true knowledge with these properties. A characteristic feature of truth is the presence of objective and subjective sides in it. Truth, by definition, is in the subject and outside the subject at the same time. When we say that truth is “subjective,” it means that it does not exist apart from man and humanity; truth is objective - this means that the true content of human ideas does not depend on either man or humanity. One of the definitions of objective truth is as follows: truth is an adequate reflection of an object by a cognizing subject, reproducing the cognized object as it exists by itself, outside the subjective individual consciousness.

Forms of Relative Truth in Science

There are different forms of relative truth. They are subdivided according to the nature of the reflected (cognizable) object, according to the types of objective reality, according to the degree of completeness of mastering the object, etc.

For example, if we consider the nature of the reflected object, then the entire reality surrounding a person in the first approximation turns out to be composed of matter and spirit, forming a single system, both of these spheres of reality become objects of human reflection and information about them is embodied in relative truths. The flow of information of material systems of micro-, macro- and megaworlds forms objective truth (it is subdivided into objective-physical, objective-biological and other types of truth). On the other hand, certain concepts, including cultural, religious and natural sciences, can also become an object of mastery by an individual, in which case the question arises of the correspondence of the individual's beliefs to a particular set of religious dogmas and scientific propositions, of the correctness of our understanding of the theory of relativity or modern synthetic the theory of evolution; both there and here the concept of "truth" is used, which leads to the recognition of the existence of conceptual truth. The situation is similar with the ideas of a particular subject about methods, means of cognition, for example, with ideas about the system approach, about the method of modeling, etc. We have one more form of truth - operational. In addition to the selected ones, there may be forms of truth due to the specificity of the types of human cognitive activity. On this basis, there are forms of truth: scientific, ordinary, moral, etc.

Truth as a dynamic process

Modern science tends to view truth as a dynamic process: truth is objective in content, and relative in form.

The objectivity of truth is the basis of the process of succession of subjective truths. The property of objective truth to be a process manifests itself in two ways: firstly, as a process of change in the direction of an ever more complete reflection of an object and, secondly, as a process of overcoming delusion in the structure of concepts and theories. One of the problems that arise on the path of a scientist in the process of scientific research is the delimitation of truth from error, or, in other words, the problem of the existence of a criterion of truth.

The criterion of truth

This problem arose along with philosophy. It took place in all periods of its development, starting from antiquity. Some philosophers believed that there was no basis for judging the objective truth of knowledge, and therefore inclined towards skepticism and agnosticism. Others relied on empirical experience given in the sensations and perceptions of a person: everything that is deduced from the sensually-given is true. Some believed that the validity of all human knowledge can be deduced from a small number of general statements - axioms, the truth of which is self-evident; the contradiction to them is simply unthinkable. However, in reality there are no such self-evident propositions that do not require proof, and the clarity and distinctness of thinking is too shaky a criterion for proving the objective truth of knowledge. Thus, neither sensory observation, nor self-evidence, clarity and distinctness of universal provisions can serve as criteria for the truth of knowledge. The fundamental flaw of all these concepts was the desire to find a criterion for the truth of knowledge in knowledge itself. As a result, special positions of knowledge stand out, which in one way or another are considered privileged in comparison with others.
The task arose to find such a criterion, which, first, would be directly related to knowledge, would determine its development, and at the same time would not be it; secondly, this criterion had to combine universality with immediate reality.
This criterion of truth turned out to be practice... The practice involves the subject, his knowledge, will; in practice - the unity of the subjective and the object with the leading role of the object. In general, practice is an objective, material process. It serves as a continuation of natural processes, unfolding according to objective laws. At the same time, cognition does not cease to be subjective, correlating with the objective. Practice includes knowledge, is able to generate new knowledge, acts as its basis and ultimate goal. However, there are a number of sciences (for example, mathematics), where practice is not a criterion of truth, but only serves as an assistant in the discovery of new scientific truths. So, based on practice, a scientist can put forward a hypothesis about the extension of this property to a number of objects. This hypothesis can be tested in practice only if the number of objects is finite. Otherwise, practice can only refute the hypothesis. Therefore, in mathematics, the logical criterion prevails. This refers to its understanding as a formal logical criterion. Its essence lies in the logical sequence of thought, in its strict adherence to the laws and rules of formal logic in conditions where there is no way to directly rely on practice. Revealing logical contradictions in reasoning or in the structure of a concept becomes an indicator of error and delusion. So, in almost all textbooks on analysis, geometry and topology, the famous and very important for mathematicians Jordan's theorem is given, cited and proved: a closed curve on a plane that does not have self-intersections (simple) divides the plane into exactly two regions - external and internal. The proof of this theorem is very difficult. Only as a result of many years of efforts, many scientists managed to find relatively simple proofs, but they are far from elementary. And the first, most difficult proof of Jordan himself had logical errors in general. While, for example, a theoretical physicist, would not spend even a minute proving Jordan's theorem. To physics, this theorem is absolutely obvious without any proof. Thus, each science has its own characteristic criteria of truth, which follow from the characteristics of each science and from the very goals that it sets for itself.

The Buddhist Concept of Absolute and Relative Truth

In Buddhism, absolute truth is understood as the truth of higher meanings (paramartha satya), accessible to the understanding of those who, in the universal relativity of the nature of becoming, among everyday ideas and scientific theories, to discern all the variety of conditioned things and phenomena as a manifestation of consciousness and to discover the absolute nature of mind ... "Behold what is conventionally called the Absolute," according to Nagarjuna (2nd-3rd centuries). In the "Mula-madhyamaka-karikas" he wrote: "The Dharma of Buddhas rests on two truths: Truth, conditioned by worldly meanings, And the truth of the highest meaning (absolute). Those who do not know the difference between these two truths, Those do not know the innermost essence ( the highest reality) In the Buddhist Teaching.Without relying on ordinary meaning Do not comprehend the highest (absolute) meaning, Without gaining absolute meaning Do not achieve the end of the series of births (samsara). (XXIV, 8-10).
In Buddhist philosophy, practice is also the criterion of truth.
In the tantras of the Diamond Way (Vajrayana), for example, in the Guhyagarbha Tantra, it is said about absolute and relative truth, it is explained that relative truth is originally pure and not created, and any object, any phenomenon of relative truth is in a state of great emptiness.

The teachings of the two truths of northern Buddhism, Mahayana and Vajrayana, are rooted in the early Buddhist doctrine of the difference in approaches to teaching the Dharma. This teaching was established by Nagarjuna as the foundation of the Madhyamaka doctrine. In it, the two truths do not oppose each other, but are complementary, this is one truth at two levels of consciousness - the mundanely rational and the spiritually contemplative. If the first is achieved through everyday skills and positive cognition, then the second is revealed in the intuitive cognition of an extra-sign reality. The intuitive truth of the highest meaning cannot be obtained without prior comprehension of conditioned truth, based on inferences, language and thinking. This complementarity of the two truths is also indicated by the Buddhist term Dharmata, which means the inherent nature of everything, the essence of things as they are. Sogyal Rinpoche: "This is the naked unconditioned truth, the nature of reality or the true nature of manifested existence."
Literature: V.P. Androsov Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: An Encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 2011, p. 90; P. 206. Absolute and Relative Truths: Lectures in Philosophy http://lects.ru/ "target =" _ self "> lects.ru

Sogyal Rinpoche. The book of life and the practice of dying.

A person learns the world, society and himself with one goal - to know the truth. And what is truth, how to determine that this or that knowledge is true, what are the criteria of truth? This is what this article is about.

What is truth

There are several definitions of truth. Here is some of them.

Truth is knowledge that corresponds to the subject of knowledge.
Truth is a true, objective reflection of reality in a person's consciousness.

Absolute truth - This is a complete, comprehensive knowledge of a person about something. This knowledge will not be refuted or supplemented with the development of science.

Examples of: man is mortal, twice two - four.

Relative truth - this is knowledge that will be replenished with the development of science, since it is still incomplete, does not fully reveal the essence of phenomena, objects, etc. This is also due to the fact that at this stage of human development, science cannot yet reach the final essence of the subject being studied.

Example: first, people discovered that substances consist of molecules, then - of atoms, then - of electrons, etc. As we can see, at each stage of the development of science, the idea of the atom was true, but incomplete, that is, relative.

Difference between absolute and relative truth is how fully a particular phenomenon or object has been studied.

Remember: absolute truth has always been relative at first. Relative truth can become absolute with the development of science.

Are there two truths?

No, there are no two truths ... There may be several points of view on the subject studied, but the truth is always the same.

What is the opposite of truth?

The opposite of truth is delusion.

Delusion - this is knowledge that does not correspond to the subject of knowledge, but is taken as truth. The scientist believes that his knowledge of the subject is true, although he is mistaken.

Remember: Lying- not is the opposite of truth.

Lie Is a category of morality. It is characteristic for her that the truth is hidden for some purpose, although it is known. Z delusion the same is not a lie, but a sincere belief that knowledge is true (for example, communism is a delusion, such a society cannot exist in the life of mankind, but whole generations of Soviet people sincerely believed in it).

Objective and subjective truth

Objective truth - this is the content of human knowledge that exists in reality and does not depend on a person, on his level of knowledge. This is the whole world that exists around.

For example, much in the world, in the Universe exists in reality, although humanity has not yet cognized it, perhaps it will never cognize it, but all this exists, an objective truth.

Subjective truth - this is the knowledge gained by mankind as a result of its cognitive activity, it is all that in reality that passed through the consciousness of man, is understood by him.

Remember:objective truth is not always subjective, and subjective truth is always objective.

Truth criteria

Criteria- This is a word of foreign origin, translated from Greek kriterion - a yardstick for assessment. Thus, the criteria of truth are the grounds that will make it possible to be convinced of the truth, accuracy of knowledge, in accordance with their subject of knowledge.

Truth criteria

Sensual experience - the simplest and most reliable criterion of truth. How to tell if an apple is tasty - taste it; how to understand that music is beautiful - to listen to it; how to make sure that the color of the leaves is green - look at them.
Theoretical information about the subject of knowledge, that is, theory ... Many objects defy sensory perception. We will never be able to see, for example, the Big Bang, as a result of which the universe was formed. In this case, theoretical study, logical conclusions will help to recognize the truth.

Theoretical criteria of truth:

Compliance with logical laws
Correspondence of the truth to those laws that were discovered by people earlier
Ease of formulation, economy of expression

Practice. This criterion is also very effective, since the truth of knowledge is proved in a practical way. (There will be a separate article about the practice, follow the publications)

Thus, the main goal of any knowledge is to establish the truth. This is what the activities of scientists are devoted to, this is what each of us is trying to achieve in life: know the truth whatever it touches.

In many ways, the problem of the reliability of our knowledge about the world is determined by the answer to the fundamental question of the theory of knowledge: "What is truth?"

1. In the history of philosophy, there were different views on the possibilities of obtaining reliable knowledge:

Empiricism - all knowledge about the world is substantiated only by experience (F. Bacon)
Sensualism - only with the help of sensations you can cognize the world (D. Hume)
Rationalism - reliable knowledge can only be gleaned from the mind itself (R. Descartes)
Agnosticism - "a thing in itself" is unknowable (I. Kant)
Skepticism - it is impossible to obtain reliable knowledge about the world (M. Montaigne)

True there is a process, and not a one-time act of comprehending an object in full at once.

Truth is one, but objective, absolute and relative aspects are distinguished in it, which can be considered as relatively independent truths.

Objective truth- this is the content of knowledge that does not depend on either man or humanity.

Absolute truth- this is an exhaustive reliable knowledge about nature, man and society; knowledge that can never be refuted.

Relative truth- this is incomplete, imprecise knowledge, corresponding to a certain level of development of society, which determines the ways of obtaining this knowledge; this knowledge, depending on certain conditions, place and time of its receipt.

The difference between absolute and relative truths (or absolute and relative in objective truth) is in the degree of accuracy and completeness of the reflection of reality. Truth is always specific, it is always associated with a specific place, time and circumstances.

Not everything in our life lends itself to assessment from the point of view of truth or error (falsehood). So, we can talk about different assessments of historical events, alternative interpretations of works of art, etc.

2. True- this is knowledge corresponding to its subject, coinciding with it. Other definitions:

correspondence of knowledge to reality;
what is confirmed by experience;
some kind of agreement, convention;
the property of self-consistency of knowledge;
the usefulness of the knowledge gained for practice.

Aspects of Truth:

3. Truth criteria- that which confirms the truth and makes it possible to distinguish it from error.

1. compliance with the laws of logic;

2. compliance with previously discovered laws of science;

3. compliance with fundamental laws;

4. simplicity, economy of the formula;

Absolute and relative truth

the paradoxicality of the idea;

6. practice.

4. Practice- an integral organic system of active material activity of people, aimed at transforming reality, carried out in a certain socio-cultural context.

Forms practices:

material production (labor, transformation of nature);
social action (revolutions, reforms, wars, etc.);
scientific experiment.

Functions practices:

a source of knowledge (practical needs brought about the science that exists today.);
the basis of knowledge (a person not only observes or contemplates the world around him, but in the process of his life transforms it);
the goal of cognition (for this, a person cognizes the world around him, reveals the laws of its development in order to use the results of cognition in his practical activity);
the criterion of truth (until some position, expressed in the form of a theory, concept, simple reasoning, is not tested by experience, is not implemented in practice, it will remain just a hypothesis (assumption)).

Meanwhile, practice is both definite and indefinite, absolute and relative. Absolute in the sense that only developing practice can finally prove any theoretical or other propositions. At the same time, this criterion is relative, since practice itself develops, improves and therefore cannot immediately and completely prove certain conclusions obtained in the process of cognition. Therefore, in philosophy, the idea of complementarity is put forward: the leading criterion of truth is practice, which includes material production, accumulated experience, experiment, is supplemented by the requirements of logical consistency and, in many cases, by the practical usefulness of certain knowledge.

Comprehensive knowledge

Page 1

Completely complete, accurate, all-round, exhaustive knowledge about any phenomenon is called absolute truth.

It is often asked whether absolute truth can be reached and formulated. Agnostics answer this question in the negative.

The lack of comprehensive knowledge about the control processes to be automated is not always an obstacle to determining the list of basic tasks and requirements for the automated control system.

If the program has comprehensive knowledge, it is able to formulate a question (or rather, the statement that stands behind it) as a logical consequence of the current state of the problem, strategic knowledge contained in the meta-rules, knowledge of the subject area and one of the current goals.

A modern scientist must have comprehensively exhaustive knowledge in the often very narrow field of science that he develops, and, on the other hand, the successful development of the chosen direction is unthinkable without a large amount of knowledge in a wide variety of related sciences.

The difference between ABSOLUTE TRUTH and RELATIVE

These experiments do not provide exhaustive knowledge for practice, therefore, it is desirable to further carry out such experimental work in relation to a much larger number of types of existing regulators and fuel supply equipment.

None of them in isolation gives an exhaustive knowledge of any subject.

But everything that, at least partially or through instruments, affects our senses, can be studied and understood.

Somewhat later it was shown that the Schrödinger's equation gives an exhaustive knowledge of the behavior of the electron. And those data that, in principle, cannot be calculated, also, in principle, cannot be measured experimentally. Let's say, as soon as you try to consider an electron, you knock it off the path. But what eludes measurement and calculation simply does not exist in the world.

As applied to a sufficiently developed scientific theoretical knowledge, absolute truth is complete, exhaustive knowledge about an object (a complexly organized material system or the world as a whole); relative truth is incomplete knowledge of the same subject.

At the same time, it is impossible, and there is no need, to demand from the leader exhaustive knowledge of all scientific disciplines, to the services of which he has to resort to in managerial activity.

Therefore, scientific truths are relative in the sense that they do not give complete, exhaustive knowledge about the studied area of subjects and contain elements that, in the process of the development of knowledge, will change, refine, deepen, and be replaced by new ones.

The technology of heat supply and ventilation is developing so rapidly that in our time it is no longer possible to demand from construction specialists and architects exhaustive knowledge of such a large field of technology in all its varieties. However, the mutual connection between the technology of heat supply and ventilation, on the one hand, and general construction equipment, on the other, not only does not disappear, but, on the contrary, becomes even closer, even more necessary for the correct solution of the complex of issues of factory, urban and collective farm construction. ...

The main task of science is to study a phenomenon when the conditions in which it occurs change. Exhaustive knowledge consists precisely in having a clear idea of this or that fact occurring in any conceivable conditions. It is very important to know what changes in the external world are indifferent to the fact of interest to us, and if there is an influence, then study it quantitatively. It is necessary to find the conditions under which the phenomenon screams about itself, and such circumstances under which the phenomenon is absent.

Each of them, they argue, turns out over time to be not entirely accurate and complete, as in the example of the solar system. Therefore, complete, exhaustive knowledge is unattainable. And the more complex this or that phenomenon, the more difficult it is to achieve absolute truth, that is, complete, comprehensive knowledge about it. And yet there is absolute truth; and it must be understood as that limit, that goal towards which human cognition strives.

In the future, it is necessary to establish why it is impossible to obtain alcohols and other functional derivatives from paraffinic hydrocarbons, especially from higher ones, using intermediate chlorination, a very attractive method. The explanation of this fact, which presupposes an exhaustive knowledge of the regularities of the substitution processes for paraffinic hydrocarbons, is associated with the general conclusion that not only chlorination, but all other paraffin substitution reactions proceed according to certain identical regularities.

Any objects can be examined with the help of models. But the fundamental incompleteness, fragmentation of the models does not allow one to obtain with their help comprehensive knowledge about the original. Only in combination with other methods of cognition, in combination with direct research of the original, the modeling method can be fruitful and have significant heuristic value.

Pages: 1 2

Relativity and absoluteness of truth

In my opinion, each person in his judgment about the truth is still purely subjective, and therefore it is necessary to distinguish between the concept of general, in other words, absolute truth from the concept of truth of each specific individual. And in the classical theory, such a distinction is virtually absent.

So what is relative truth? Perhaps it can be characterized as knowledge that approximately and incompletely reproduces the objective world. It is precisely approximation and incompleteness that are specific properties of relative truth. If the world is a system of interconnected elements, then we can conclude that any knowledge about the world, abstracted from some of its sides, will be deliberately inaccurate. Why? It seems to me that because a person cannot cognize the world without fixing his attention on some of its sides and without being distracted from others, so closeness is inherent in the cognitive process itself.

On the other hand, the search for absolute truth is being undertaken within the framework of knowledge of specific, or even isolated facts. As examples of eternal truths usually appear sentences that are a statement of fact, for example: "Napoleon died on May 5, 1821". Or the speed of light in a vacuum is 300,000 km / s.

6 Truth and its criteria. The relativity of truth.

However, attempts to apply the concept of absolute truth to more essential provisions of science, for example, to universal laws, are unsuccessful.

Thus, a kind of dilemma arises: if absolute truth is viewed as absolutely complete and accurate knowledge, then it lies outside the limits of real scientific knowledge; if it is considered as a set of eternal truths, then the concept of absolute truth is inapplicable to the most fundamental types of scientific knowledge. This dilemma is the result of a one-sided approach to the problem, expressed in the fact that absolute truth is identified with a kind of knowledge, separated from relative truth. The meaning of the concept "absolute truth" is revealed only in the process of development of scientific knowledge. It consists in the fact that during the transition of scientific knowledge from stage to stage, for example, from one theory to another, old knowledge is not completely discarded, but in one form or another is included in the system of new knowledge. It is this inclusion, the continuity that characterizes truth as a process, that is, perhaps, the content of the concept of absolute truth.

Thus, a lot of unsolved problems arose, each of which, in one way or another, is connected with the need to determine the degree of correspondence between human ideas and the real world. This implies the need to search for the most stringent criterion of truth, that is, a sign by which it would be possible to determine the truth of this or that knowledge.

In addition, only after the establishment of the criterion of truth, many categories with which a person has to interact in one way or another take on meaning.

Procedurality of cognition lies in the fact that cognitive activity is progress from ignorance to knowledge, from error to truth, from incomplete, imperfect, incomplete knowledge to more complete, perfect knowledge. The goal of knowledge is the attainment of truth.

What is Truth? How are truth and error related? How is the truth obtained and what are its criteria?

J. Locke wrote about the meaning of the attainment of truth: “The search for truth by the mind is a kind of falconry or hound hunting, in which the very pursuit of game is a significant part of the pleasure. Each step that the mind makes in its movement towards knowledge is some discovery, which is not only new, but also the best, for a while, at least. "

Aristotle gave the classic definition truths - this is the correspondence of thought and object, knowledge and reality. Truth is knowledge that corresponds to reality. It should be noted that in nature itself there are no truths, delusions. They are characteristics of human cognition .

Kinds of truth:

1.Absolute Truth -

This knowledge, the content of which is not refuted by the subsequent development of science, but is only enriched and concretized (for example, the doctrine of Democritus about atoms;

This is knowledge, the content of which remains invariant (Pushkin was born in 1799);

it absolutely complete and complete knowledge of the subject ... In this understanding, absolute truth is not achievable, because all the connections of an object cannot be investigated.

2 objective truth- this is knowledge about an object, the content of which is the properties and connections of an objectively (independently of a person) existing object. Such knowledge does not bear the imprint of the personality of the researcher.

Objective truth - this is the content of knowledge that does not depend on a person, it is an adequate reflection of the surrounding world by the subject.

3 relative truth- this is incomplete, limited, true only under certain conditions knowledge that humanity possesses at this stage of its development. Relative truth contains elements of delusion associated with the concrete historical conditions of cognition.

4 concrete truth- this is knowledge, the content of which is true only under certain conditions. For example, "water boils at 100 degrees" is true only under normal atmospheric pressure.

The process of cognition can be represented as a movement towards absolute truth as a goal through the accumulation of the content of objective truth through the refinement and improvement of relative and specific truths.

The opposite of truth, but under certain conditions that passes into it and arises from it, is delusion.

Delusion - unintentional mismatch of our understanding of an object (expressed in the corresponding judgments or concepts) with this object itself.

Sources of confusion may be:

- imperfection of the cognitive abilities of the individual;

- prejudices, addictions, subjective moods of the individual;

- poor knowledge of the subject of knowledge, rash generalizations and conclusions.

Misconceptions must be distinguished from:

— mistakes (the result of an incorrect theoretical or practical action, as well as the interpretation of this phenomenon);

— lies (deliberate, deliberate distortion of reality, deliberate dissemination of knowingly wrong ideas).

The idea that science operates only with truths does not correspond to reality. Delusion is an organic part of truth and stimulates the process of knowledge as a whole. On the one hand, delusions lead away from the truth, so a scientist, as a rule, does not deliberately put forward incorrect assumptions. But on the other hand, delusions often contribute to the creation of problem situations, stimulating the development of science.

The experience of the history of science allows us to draw an important conclusion: all scientists should be equal in their search for truth; not a single scientist, not a single scientific school has the right to claim a monopoly in obtaining true knowledge.

The separation of truth from error is impossible without solving the question of what is criterion of truth .

From the history of attempts to identify the criteria for the truth of knowledge:

· Rationalists (R. Descartes, B. Spinoza, G. Leibniz) - the criterion of truth is thinking itself when it clearly and distinctly thinks the object; the original truths are self-evident and are grasped through intellectual intuition.

· Russian philosopher V.S. Soloviev - “the measure of truth is transferred from the external world to the cognizing subject himself, the basis of truth is not the nature of things and phenomena, but the human mind” in the case of conscientious work of thinking.

· E. Cassirer - the criterion of truth is the internal consistency of thinking itself.

· Conventionalism (A. Poincaré, K. Aydukevich, R. Carnap) - scientists accept scientific theories (conclude an agreement, convention) for reasons of convenience, simplicity, etc. The criterion of truth is the formal logical consistency of the judgments of science with these agreements.

· Neopositivists (XX century) - the truth of scientific statements is established as a result of their empirical verification, this is the so-called. verification principle. (Verifiability (verification) from Latin verus - true, and facio - I do). However, we note that often experimental activity cannot give a final answer about the truth of knowledge. This happens when the process is investigated in the experiment "in its pure form", i.e. in complete isolation from other influencing factors. Experimental testing of social and humanitarian knowledge is significantly limited.

· Pragmatism (W. James) - the truth of knowledge is manifested in their ability to be useful to achieve a particular goal; truth is good. (The thesis "all that is useful is true" is controversial, since a lie can also bring benefit).

The most common criterion of truth knowledge is practice , understood as the social and historical activity of people. If the use of knowledge in the practical activities of people gives the expected results, then our knowledge correctly reflects reality. Practice as a criterion of truth is viewed not as a single experience, not as a one-time act of verification, but as social practice in its historical development.

However, this criterion is not universal, for example, it does not work in those branches of knowledge that are far from reality (mathematics, non-classical physics). Then other truth criteria are proposed:

· Formal logical criterion. It is applicable to axiomatic-deductive theories, assumes compliance with the requirements of internal consistency (this is the main requirement), completeness and interdependence of axioms.

When there is no way to rely on practice, the logical sequence of thought, its strict adherence to the laws and rules of formal logic, is revealed. Revealing logical contradictions in reasoning or in the structure of a concept becomes an indicator of error or delusion.

· The principle of simplicity , sometimes it is called "Occam's razor" - not to multiply the number of entities unnecessarily. The main requirement of this principle is that to explain the objects under study, it is necessary to introduce the minimum number of initial postulates (accepted without proving the positions).

· Axiological criterion , i.e.

Absolute and relative truth

correspondence of knowledge to general worldview, socio-political, moral principles. Especially applicable in the social sciences.

But the most important criterion of truth is still practice, experience. Practice underlies the logical, axiological and all other criteria of truth. Whatever methods of establishing the truth of knowledge exist in science, all of them ultimately (through a number of intermediary links) are associated with practice.

6. Characteristics of the cognitive abilities of various social groups.

The formation of full-fledged cognitive abilities in children of primary and school age has been sufficiently well studied by now. The study of the intellectual level of adults faces serious difficulties. Here, of course, one cannot deny the presence of certain age characteristics, but it is rather difficult to distinguish such age groups. Researchers today have established that certain age groups have common features and relatively stable signs of their intellectual activity. These characteristics are influenced not only by biological age, but also by other factors: family, place of residence, education, ethnic characteristics and much more. Therefore, people of the same age can belong to different intellectual groups depending on their socio-cultural environment.

When measuring the formed intelligence using the so-called "D. Weksler's battery of tests" (tests for awareness, logic, memory, operating with symbols, comprehension of communication, etc.), the best results were given by the age group from 15 to 25 years, and according to other data - from 25 to 29 years old.

It is quite difficult to achieve high accuracy in measuring intelligence. Summarizing the data of various measurements, we can say that the growth of intellectual abilities occurs until about 20-25 years. Then an insignificant intellectual decline sets in, which becomes more noticeable after 40-45 years and reaches its maximum after 60-65 years (Fig. 4).

Rice. 4. The relationship between intelligence and age

However, such testing does not give an objective picture, since young, mature and old minds cannot be studied with the same tests.

In a young man, the mind serves, first of all, to assimilate the greatest amount of information, to master new ways of activity for him. The mind of a more mature person is aimed not so much at increasing knowledge as at solving complex problems based on already existing knowledge, experience and his own style of thinking and acting. These qualities of intelligence are often called wisdom. Of course, over the years, certain functions of the intellect inevitably weaken and even get lost. In elderly and especially senile people, the objectivity of assessments is gradually decreasing, inert judgments are growing, they often stray into extreme, black and white tones on controversial issues of life practice.

Research shows that the natural decline in intellectual activity is constrained by personal giftedness, education, and social status. People with higher educational attainment and leadership positions tend to retire later than their peers. In addition, they are more able to remain intellectually active after retirement, working as advisers or consultants.

Quite naturally, there are many intellectual centenarians among scientists and other specialists in mental and creative work. For older scientists and engineers, vocabulary and general erudition almost do not change with age, for middle managers, non-verbal communication functions remain at a high level, for accountants, the speed of arithmetic operations.

In addition to the age-related characteristics of intelligence, one can also talk about gender and ethnicity.

The question of who is smarter - men or women - is as old as the world. Experimental and test studies carried out over the past two decades have confirmed the fundamental equality of intelligence in people of different sexes. When performing tasks for different mental functions (the ability to generate ideas, originality, originality), no special differences were found between male and female intelligences. Many famous psychologists independently came to such conclusions. However, some superiority of women was found in the resources of verbal memory and lexical stock of living speech. Men, on the other hand, are superior to women in visual-spatial orientation.

Thus, although there are intellectual differences between the sexes, they are incomparably small in relation to the individual differences within each sex.

The fundamental equality of intellects does not mean at all that they are the same, that the cognitive processes in men and women are completely identical. IQ tests consistently reveal some differences between boys and girls, boys and girls, men and women. Women, on average, are superior to men in verbal abilities, but inferior to them in mathematical abilities and the ability to navigate in space. Girls usually learn to speak, read and write before boys.

The differences noted should not be absolutized. Many men speak better than women, and some women show better mathematical abilities than the vast majority of men.

An interesting fact is that men, according to most of the methods, receive the highest and lowest possible marks. In women, the range of individual assessments of mental giftedness is much narrower. In other words, there are many more geniuses among men in science, art and other fields, but there are also much more feeble-minded men than women.

Another interesting question that arises before the researcher of intelligence is ethnic characteristics. As a rule, ethnic characteristics of intellectual activity and intellectual development are formed against the background of the psychological makeup of the nation.

Hans Eysenck, based on research conducted in the United States, notes that Jews, Japanese and Chinese are superior to representatives of all other nations in all indicators of IQ (intelligence quotient) tests. This is also evidenced by the presentation of the Nobel Prize. American Scientists, which lists America's eminent scientists, shows that Jews outnumber non-Jews in this area by about 300%. The Chinese are just as successful in physics and biology. One of the few currently known attempts at typologizing national minds belongs to a French theorist of science at the beginning of the 20th century. Pierre Duhem. Duhem distinguished between broad minds, but not deep enough, and thin, perceptive minds, although relatively narrow in their scope.

People of a broad mind, in his opinion, are found among all peoples, but there is a nation for which such an intellect is especially characteristic. These are the British. In science and, especially in practice, this "British" type of mind easily operates with complex groupings of individual objects, but it is much more difficult to assimilate purely abstract concepts, formulate general features. In the history of philosophy, an example of this type of mind, from the point of view of Duhem, is F. Bacon.

The French type, according to Duhem, is a particularly subtle mind, loves abstractions, generalizations. It's too narrow though. R. Descartes is an example of the French type of mind. Duhem cited supporting examples not only from the history of philosophy, but also from other sciences.

Whenever attempting to isolate a special national model of thought, one should bear in mind the relativity of such differentiation. The national mind is not a stable pattern, like the color of the skin or the shape of the eyes, it reflects many features of the socio-cultural life of the people.

⇐ Previous34353637383940414243Next ⇒

Studopedia.org - Studopedia.Org - 2014-2018. (0.004 s) ...

True- this is knowledge corresponding to its subject, coinciding with it. Truth is one, but objective, absolute and relative aspects are distinguished in it.
Objective truth- this is the content of knowledge that exists by itself and does not depend on a person.
Absolute truth- This is an exhaustive reliable knowledge about nature, man and society; knowledge that cannot be refuted in the process of further knowledge. (For example, the earth revolves around the sun).
Relative truth- this is incomplete, imprecise knowledge corresponding to a certain level of development of society, depending on certain conditions, place, time and means of obtaining knowledge. It can change, become obsolete, be replaced by a new one in the process of further cognition. (For example, changes in people's ideas about the shape of the Earth: flat, spherical, elongated or flattened).

Truth criteria- that which characterizes the truth and distinguishes it from delusion.
1. Universality and necessity (I. Kant);
2. Simplicity and clarity (R. Descartes);
3. Logical consistency, general validity (A. A. Bogdanov);
4. Usefulness and economy;
5. Truth is "estina", that which is in reality (PA Florensky);
6. Aesthetic criterion (the inner perfection of the theory, the beauty of the formula, the grace of evidence).
But all these criteria are insufficient, the universal criterion of truth is social and historical practice: material production (labor, transformation of nature); social action (revolutions, reforms, wars, etc.); scientific experiment.
Practice value:
1. The source of knowledge (practice poses vital problems for science);
2. The goal of cognition (a person cognizes the world around him, reveals the laws of its development in order to use the results of cognition in his practical activity);
3. The criterion of truth (until the hypothesis is tested by experience, it will remain just an assumption).