Epistemology. Concepts of knowledge

The theory of idealism, which was sometimes called utopianism, and in a broader context of social theory - liberalism, as a direction of scientific thought began to take shape in ancient times. Reflections on this subject are found in the works of Plato and Aristotle, Confucius, Cicero, Ulpian and others. Ancient scientists focused on the essence of the state and the problems of war and peace, which, in the end, and in later times were the main object of study of the theory international relations. Even then, statements were made about the abnormality of wars and their fair or unfair nature, and the aggressiveness of states was explained by the peculiarities of their internal political structure.

Of particular importance for the development of the foundations of idealism were the views of two great ancient Greek philosophers - Plato and his disciple Aristotle.

Plato (429-347 BC) became the author of a very interesting concept of the forms of political government of states, the doctrine of their gradual degradation and circulation. According to Plato, the state arises from the natural need of a person to organize interactions among similar ones. The organization of these interactions is aimed at introducing a certain fair order of human relationships. Justice in relations between people is possible only if the state exists, because "... those who adhere to justice adhere to it through the inability to create injustice, and not through their own desire." The most important forms of the state are: aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. Forms of political government determine not only the internal but also the foreign policy of the state, since it limits and directs the will of the people. If the assertion is true that the state under certain political conditions determines the life of citizens, then the statement is also correct that it determines their attitude towards other states. Among all forms of political government, the most susceptible to external aggression is timocracy as “a mixed order, the signs of which are partly imitation of aristocracy (timocracy is characterized by respect for power ...), partly oligarchy (people here are greedy for money and, like savages, revere gold and silver); with this system, there are no direct and simple-hearted people, it will not be the wise who will rule, but those who are simpler - born for wars, endowed with an ardent spirit, military tricks will be held in high esteem, and such a state will fight forever.

The combination of brave and warlike rulers with a mercantile society in whose interests they act, according to Plato, is the most important reason for the aggressiveness of states and wars between them. In timocracy, the determining factor in political management is the desire “... so that wise men do not come to power, because there are no longer ... sincere and decisive people ..; there to reach out for those who are heartbreaking in spirit, and for those who are less perfect and inclined more towards war than towards peace. “Aristotle (384-322 pp. BC) is the author of one of the first works in which experience of public administration, - "Politics". He puts the statement that "the state belongs to that which exists by nature, and man (by nature) is a political being" as the basis for the perception of the state. The existence of a person outside the community represented by the state is unthinkable, since the unit cannot exist without the whole.

Aristotle outlined the international context for the existence of the state in seven statements:

1 The ultimate goal of the policy of the state is to achieve the happiness of its citizens, determined by law, good customs and education. However, unlike Plato, he believed that an ideal state cannot exist, since the fact of its neighborhood

2. The basis of relations between states has to withdraw their imposition on each other, since this is contrary to good customs and law.

3.Vyny and capture is not the goal of the state, although it must be ready for war for its own protection.

4. The territory of the state should be difficult to access for enemies, but have enough routes (land or sea) that can be used for military and commercial purposes.

5. People are in accordance with the climatic conditions of their residence. In Europe they are active and independent, but in countries with a hot climate they are sluggish and indecisive, although they are endowed with a creative imagination.

6. The state needs military force only in time of war, and therefore its employment is not the most important goal of state policy, but only a means of using it in critical situations.

7. Volodynnia by the armed forces and especially the navy is necessary for some states even in peacetime, since this makes it possible to arouse respect and fear among enemies, and in addition, to help friendly states.

The main idea of ​​Plato and Aristotle, which later became the foundation not only of idealism, but of the entire classical school of the theory of international relations, was the statement about the subjective nature of the state and its policies. This policy, which must meet the criteria of wisdom and justice, they understood as an imitation of good customs and ideas.

The revival of idealism in the Middle Ages can be considered the theological concept of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who saw the cause of war in the sinfulness of people and secular power, and considered the combination of customary and canonical law in politics, that is, human and divine order, as a means of achieving and maintaining peace.

Conflicts and wars arise from human weaknesses and sins (greed, cruelty, pride, etc.), which must be overcome or regulated with the help of confession lex aeterna, i.e. eternal law of God. That is why secular power must be supplemented by spiritual power, which in the realities of the 13th century. meant the subordination of the Christian monarchs of Europe to the power of the Pope of Rome. The subordination of the secular authority to the spiritual was aimed at the complete exclusion from public life of the war between Christians and the regulation on the basis of lex helium (the law of war) of wars in the name of self-defense, the victory of "good over evil", the support of Christianity in the struggle against infidels and barbarians. For a war to be justified, three conditions must be met:

1) it must be officially declared legal by the government;

2) it must be justified by a just cause (lista causa);

3) its purpose must be determined by a just intention (recta sh-tentio).

The concept of T. Aquinas became the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, as it substantiated and generalized its practical policy towards the then European states.

Describing the attitude of the church to the problem of war, M. Howard wrote: “The concepts of jus ad helium, jus in hello — justice in war, justice for the vanquished — were not very helpful when the Normans, like an all-consuming fire, devastated Christian lands. It was also difficult for the clergy to apply the concept of humanity and justice to Muslims, they fanatically sought to convert or exterminate the Gentiles wherever their swords reached ...

According to the wars between Christians, the situation looked somewhat different. It was considered shameful for a Christian to fight a Christian, and the church constantly condemned this, but in vain, as in our day. But Christian theologians agreed that some wars were "just". This category included those that were conducted on the basis of ‘legitimate priority and just reasons’.

The principle of justice, T. Aquinas borrowed from Plato and Aristotle, was associated not only with the idea of ​​theocracy in international relations, but also with the rationale for the need to prohibit certain types of wars, the church recognized as inappropriate to it.

The idea of ​​a complete extraction of the war in international relations in modern times led to an attempt to theoretically substantiate the so-called "La Paix Perpetuelle" ("Perpetual Peace"), based on the idea of ​​​​creating a pan-European confederation as a way to achieve peace and avoid wars by overcoming the arbitrariness of feudal rulers. The very projects of the confederation were put forward by P. Dubois, Duke de Sully, E. Rotterdam, V. Pen, J.J. Rousseau and many other thinkers. These projects were connected with the search for the optimal political structure of Europe. An expressive feature of their views was the justification for the need to create a certain supranational institution that could resolve disputes between European states in an unbiased manner. The Council of Monarchs was forced by P. Dubois, the European Parliament - V. Pen, the Council of the Confederation - J.J. Rousseau. In all cases, their competence included not only arbitration in interstate disputes, but also the armed "punishment" of the aggressor by a community of states headed by supranational institutions.

In one of his first works, "Mare liberum" ("Free Sea"), he tries to explore the dilemma of war and peace through the prism of moral principles that determine the relationship between the states of the world. In his opinion, to resolve armed conflicts, universal moral principles to be followed by governments all over the world. This is about:

The principle of self-preservation, which consists in mutual respect for legitimate and necessary interests for the existence of states;

The principle of opposition to arbitrariness and injustice is the solidarity of governments to prevent a policy that is based on unjustified self-preservation interests and goals.

These ideas are philosophically substantiated and developed by X. Rocius in his further works. G. Hoffmann-Lorzer reduces his reasoning to five main points:

1 Mankind can achieve a just and happy life only under the guidance of the “true God”, whose intentions are always just.

2. Humanity is subject to two principles: a) international law(jus gentium); c) natural law (Jus naturae).

3. God gave Christians a special right (jus voluntarium divi-pit).

4.Jus naturae and jus gentium are, under certain circumstances, contrary to man-made law (jus voluntairum humanum).

5. The divine image, which is perfect, corresponds to the human image, determined not only by fair intentions, but also by social interests.

The image (nature) of a person is always imperfect because of the tragic discrepancy between the just intentions and the social interests of a person. This discrepancy is the root cause of social cataclysms (primarily wars) that arise as a result of a violation of justice. Injustice generated by human passions always leads to war. War, however, in his conception is a marginal phenomenon, since "there is no such dispute through which war could not start ... War itself leads us to peace as to its ultimate goal." So, according to X. Grotsiy, war disrupts the normal state of international relations and is a temporary phenomenon, since they always return to peaceful coexistence between the states of the world. To establish a just international order and eliminate war, it is necessary to form a system of law, which results in the idea of ​​God's justice.

In his main work “De jure Belli as Pacis” (“On the Law of War and Peace”), he understands the system of international law as a set of ordinary (natural) and positive2 norms of relations between states, their codification and observance by states in their policies, in his opinion, is an effective tool for harmonizing international relations. At the same time, they must be kept from armed violence, and the conflicts that arise between them must be resolved through negotiations, conscientious mediation and in court. The latter method of resolving contradictions is especially valuable, since it equalizes the rights of strong and weak states and gives the latter hope for justice.

J. Bentham (1748-1832) put forward the idea of ​​“limitation of force” in international relations, which, in his opinion, would make armed conflicts and wars of conquest caused by religious and priority disputes, the tyranny of one nation over another, the selfish interests of power elites. Political elites are accustomed to using armed force in any circumstances, despite the fact that such a policy is contrary to the interests of peoples who are inclined towards peace and harmony.

To limit the use of armed force in international relations, according to J. Bentham, is possible under the following conditions:

Introduction of personal responsibility of government members for drawing peoples into the war;

Bringing militarization, weakening the influence of the army on society and general disarmament;

Pripinennya practice of "secret" diplomacy;

Creation of an international organization consisting of delegations of European states authorized to resolve disputes between them.

The foundations of an idealistic understanding of international relations are holistically and clearly formulated in the works of the outstanding German philosopher E. Kant (1724-1804) "Towards Eternal Peace" and "Ideas of World History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View". E. Kant is considered the founder of the liberal direction of idealism, for his idea that the goal of human development is to achieve a “universal civil state”, which is understood as a system of representative democracy. The desire to achieve such a state should, of necessity, limit the subjective will of individuals endowed with power. their lack of control contributes to the manifestation of cruelty, greed, megalomania, which pushes peoples to war, which they all do not want. This can be done only if a civil society is created, public control over the actions and decisions of the authorities is created, and citizens are involved in the active management of the state, which will result in permanent peace. It will arise due to the fact that if for “solving the question: to be or not to be a war? - The consent of the citizens is required, then ... they will think twice before starting such a bad game. Because they will have to take on the whole burden of the war: fight themselves, pay the military expenses of their states from their own pockets, and finally restore the devastation caused by the war. The state of permanent peace must be supported by the development of mutually beneficial trade relations and the system of international law. This will make it possible to smooth out the contradictions and distrust between peoples, to create a moral and legal basis for their harmonious development.

In general, relations between states can be permanently peaceful if their governments adhere to six essential principles:

1. An international treaty cannot have legal force when the reservatio mentalis2 is secretly stored in it, since international treaties are called upon to eliminate the causes of wars between states, and not to create grounds for their occurrence in the future.

2. Once an independent state, it cannot be annexed or transferred (as an inheritance, as a result of a purchase, exchange or dynastic marriage) to another. The state and its citizens cannot be considered as property, since they have national sovereignty, the violation of which always leads to wars.

3.Postiyni armies should be eliminated over time, since they are constantly ready to wage war, they are a serious threat to the existence of others, especially neighboring states. their existence causes attempts by governments to arm and increase military forces to the point where "peacekeeping military expenditures become so onerous from a short war that the standing armies themselves become the cause of a military attack in order to get rid of this burden."

4.Public debts should not be used for purposes foreign policy. We are talking about the accumulation of external debts by governments, which can give them the necessary funds to wage war even with creditor states.

5. Any state of the world cannot interfere by force in the internal affairs of another state. Such interference is a violation of the sovereign rights of the people and cannot cause any other reaction than armed resistance to the invaders.

6. The state cannot use in political struggle (even in times of war) dishonorable means: murder, violation of the terms of treaties or the act of surrender, incitement of foreign citizens to treason or rebellion against their legitimate authority. Such actions undermine trust in relations between the governments of states and the authority of the authorities resorting to them in the eyes of their own citizens.

E. Rotterdamsky, E. DeWattel, J. Locke, C. De Saint-Pierre, T. Payne, J. Mill were also idealists, in essence, views on international relations, who, despite the differences, “are United by the way of seeing the world , an expressive belief in conscience and rationality as preconditions for peace and universal harmony".

By the beginning of the XX century. individual idealist concepts regarding the nature and content of international relations are expressed either in the thoughts of politicians or in the peripheral works of philosophers, does not give grounds to consider idealism as a holistic scientific direction, is based on a coherent system of views. The theory of international relations did not receive systematic development until the end of the First World War, and its object of study occupied a marginal place in philosophy, history, legal science and sociology. Until now, most scientists have proceeded from the immutability of the international community, that is, they have considered it from a metaphysical position. The study of processes in the international environment has not been defined as a subject of study at all, since there was no even a primitive understanding of them.

Idealism finally took shape in the 1920s and 1930s. as a systematized set of views of intellectuals - idealists who shared the position of the President of the Village V. Wilson regarding the League of Nations and modern international relations. His views were formed under the significant influence of the ideas of J. Bentham and were expressed in the program slogans of a radical transformation of international relations: "peace through law", "harmony of interests", "global harmony", "international law as a world treasure of moral values". The famous 14 points proposed by the President of the CELA at the Versailles Peace Conference became the actual embodiment of the theoretical principles of idealism in real international relations.

In the period between the world wars, the Briand-Kellogg Pact, signed on August 27, 1928 in Paris, also relied on the principles of idealism. The "Pact of general renunciation of war" consisted of two articles in which the parties1 solemnly pledged not to use military force in their relations and to resolve all possible disputes by peaceful means. The doctrine of the State Secretary of the SELA, Stymson, followed logically from the articles of the treaty and consisted in the non-recognition of territorial changes achieved by military force. Quite skeptically assessing the significance of the legal ban on the use of military force, J. B. Durozel noted: “This pact marked the apogee of the pacifist wave and the “pactomania” characteristic of diplomacy at that time. Many people believed that when more pacts, even innocent ones, were signed, those who signed them would strictly keep their word. It was certainly a dangerous illusion.

The idealists believed that war was the result of politics carried out by selfish, cruel and incompetent political leaders and power was subordinated to them. Such a policy, and the general suspicion and aggressiveness that it engenders, is greatly facilitated by the secret diplomacy and militarism widely practiced by states. transparent public policy, the active development of international law, democratic supranational institutions (which follows from the doctrine of "internal analogy") and collective security systems - "key" elements of harmonious international relations.

Another principle of idealism is the principle of national self-determination, which developed from E. Kant's idea of ​​a "common civil status". The free expression of the will of nations will lead to the creation of their legitimate representative power, and this will eliminate the causes of internal conflicts and their development into international ones. G. L. Dickenson believed that, while consolidating the principle of national sovereignty, it is necessary to simultaneously form world public opinion on the problems of international relations, which can become a powerful means of achieving harmony, as a manifestation of "world mind".

The British researcher N. Angel, unlike most idealists, considered the idea of ​​national sovereignty and the fact of the division of mankind into independent, warring states scientific absurdity. Developing the idea of ​​E. Kant about the importance of mutually beneficial trade for the harmonization of international relations, he argued that a war between the highly developed countries of the world is impossible. The reason he called free trade, which created unprecedented interdependence and cooperation, which became the basis of the individual and collective welfare of the countries of the world (for this he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1933). In general, idealists constantly tried to justify the impossibility and rudimentary nature of war, as well as the outdated concepts of foreign policy, which were based on the use of military force. At one time, E. Rotterdam substantiated the thesis about the economic unprofitability of war, and O. Comte argued that in the 19th century. the need for the use of force by states disappeared with a change in the main criterion for the development of society, in contrast to previous eras, when it was determined by the possession of a certain amount of human and natural resources - it became the scientific organization of labor.

The theory of idealism is based on the assumptions "that human behavior shapes the environment, but it can be changed ... that humanity is capable of self-improvement ... the political environment can be transformed by the development of new institutions such as the League of Nations and the United Nations." The harmony of interest in peace at the level of community or nation-state is based on the interest of the individual in a peaceful world. There are idealists who interpreted the essence of a participant in international relations as anthropomorphic, believing that he can act in international relations well or badly, morally or immorally. The activities of any participants in international relations are determined by certain principles, and they themselves may be subject to moral improvement.

The theoretical views of the idealists on international relations boil down to the following statements:

1. International relations, like any social relations, arising from the nature and aspirations of a person, and therefore it is advisable to consider and explain them through the prism of her behavior. A person, like any team created by her, is interested in harmonious and conflict-free relations, since they guarantee development and prosperity.

2. The state is a macrophenomenon of any human community, and their foreign policy can be compared with human behavior, that is, it can be moral or immoral, good or evil. The criterion of morality is the universal human norms of behavior, materialized in the sphere of international relations as harmony and conflict-free. The state, which is the initiator of the conflict, acts immorally and deserves adequate measures from the international community. R. Kast called the initiator of the confrontation "a natural aggressor, a rebel against the world."

The instruments for maintaining stability are international organizations, international law and world public opinion. International organizations are called upon to be regulators of relations between states, playing the role of arbitrators and directing them towards harmony.

3. National interest psychologically expresses a subjective understanding of the needs of society, which is always different from reality. In international relations there is a harmony of interests of their participants, and the divergence of their views and contradictions are not significant, since the harmonization by the “invisible hand” (God, reason, etc.) is borrowed from economic theory A. Smith.

4 Conflicts on an objective basis cannot arise, because any contradictions without an objective basis can be resolved through negotiations.

International relations, and especially foreign policy, must be carried out according to universal moral standards and international law, as a guarantee of stability, and their violation leads to contradictions and conflicts, which is an abnormal phenomenon.

E. Carr considered the supporters of idealism as the intellectual descendants of the Enlightenment (XVIII century), Liberalism (XIX century) and W. Wilson's idealism (XX century). Idealism, in his opinion, is associated with the traditional Anglo-American tendency to exaggerate freedom of choice in foreign policy, a certain hypocrisy, built on the slogans of disinterest, morality and normative thinking of both politicians and scientists, cut off from life. Commenting on the renaissance of idealism at the beginning of the 20th century. , He wrote: “Ironically, half-forgotten ideas of the XIX century. born again in the second and third decades of the 20th century. in the special sphere of international relations and became the basis of a new utopia ...

As Bentham took the ideas of the Enlightenment centuries ago and adapted them to the needs of the time, Woodrow Wilson … made faith in the mind of the last century almost the fundamental basis of international relations.”

Idealism as a system of scientific views on international relations was formed at the initial stage of the development of theory and developed primarily in the countryside and Great Britain. Crisis of the League of Nations and the Second World War put an end to many of the illusions of scientists and clearly demonstrated the inadequacy of the reality of international relations to their ideas about it. The theory of idealism suffered a severe crisis, which turned out to be skeptical towards it and the transformation of the position of analysts to diametrically opposed assessments of international relations.

The classical theory of idealism remains the theoretical basis of many modern scientific ideas and concepts, the scientific substantiation of the foreign policy of a number of states in the world.

Idealism in philosophy is a trend that claims that our spirit, subconscious and consciousness, thoughts, dreams and everything spiritual are primary. The material aspect of our world is considered something derivative. In other words, the spirit gives rise to matter, and without thought there can be no object.

General concepts

Based on this, many skeptics believe that idealism in philosophy is acceptance. They give examples where convinced idealists plunge into the world of their dreams, regardless of whether they concern a specific person or the whole world. We will now consider the two main varieties of idealism and compare them. It is also worth noting that both of these concepts, despite the fact that they are often characterized by opposing dogmas, are the exact opposite of realism.

in philosophy

The objective current in philosophical science appeared in ancient times. In those years, people did not yet share their teachings as such, so there was no such name. The father of objective idealism is considered to be Plato, who put the whole world around people into the framework of myth and divine stories. One of his statements has passed through the centuries and is still a kind of slogan of all idealists. It lies in disinterestedness, in the fact that an idealist is a person who strives for higher harmony, for higher ideals, despite minor adversities and problems. In antiquity, a similar trend was also supported by Proclus and Plotinus.

This philosophical science reaches its apogee during the Middle Ages. In these dark ages, idealism in philosophy is a church philosophy that explains any phenomenon, any thing, and even the very fact of human existence as an act of the Lord. The objective idealists of the Middle Ages believed that the world as we see it was built by God in six days. They completely denied evolution and any other gradations of man and nature that could lead to development.

The idealists separated from the church. In their teachings, they tried to convey to people the nature of one spiritual principle. As a rule, objective idealists preached the idea of ​​universal peace and understanding, the realization that we are all one, which can achieve the highest harmony in the Universe. It was on the basis of such semi-utopian judgments that idealism was built in philosophy. This trend was represented by such personalities as G. W. Leibniz, F. W. Schelling.

Subjective idealism in philosophy

This trend was formed around the 17th century, in those years when there was even the slightest opportunity to become a free person, independent of the state and the church. The essence of subjectivism in idealism lies in the fact that a person builds his world through thoughts and desires. Everything that we see, feel, is only our world. The other individual builds it in his own way, respectively, sees and perceives it differently. Such "isolated" idealism in philosophy is a kind of visualization as a model of reality. Representatives are I. G. Fichte, J. Berkeley, and also D. Huma.

The meaning of the category of being is affirmed by all philosophical schools; content, categories of being - the object of discussion. In the philosophical doctrine of being, philosophers are faced with a number of cardinal problems, the various solutions of which determine the differences in philosophical views. These problems include such questions as: Does the world have unity in its existence and what is the basis of this unity? Is the world in its essence immutable or is it constantly changing and developing? Is the world ordered in its development and change, does it obey any laws, or does it change and develop in a completely arbitrary way? Does the world as a whole and in its separate fragments have a systemic organization or does it exist as a simple conglomerate various elements?

Depending on their solution, the philosophical concepts of the world are divided into idealism and materialism, monism and pluralism, determinism and indeterminism, etc.

Now it is time to classify the historically developed directions of ontology; both European and Eastern.

As a rule, philosophers sought to create their own pictures of the universe, based on one principle. This trend in ontology is called monism . There are several variants of monism. It can be materialistic, idealistic, objective, subjective, and so on. The philosopher's choice of one or another variant of monism occurs in accordance with inner convictions.

materialism This direction of monism is called, in which matter is recognized as the fundamental principle of all things. Spiritual, mental processes are considered a product of matter; the laws of spiritual existence depend on material existence, they are a reflection of the laws of the material world. idealism called such a direction of monism, which recognizes the fundamental principle of all things, the idea, spirit or thought. Matter is an incarnation - a "variety" - of the spirit. Idealism believes that the laws of evolution of the material world are generated by the spirit. Objective monism recognizes the existence of an objective world, completely independent of the subject; reality that is imposed on the subject. Subjective monism refuses to accept the existence of this reality and considers the world to be the product of a particular subject.

Monism has very serious roots in the European philosophical tradition. The philosophers of antiquity were for the most part monists. Let us recall Thales with his idea that the fundamental principle of existence is water. The monism of most ancient philosophers had the character of objective materialism. Medieval philosophy also gravitated toward monism, but in the variant of objective idealism: the idea - the Divine Spirit - is the fundamental principle of the world, since God creates matter, i.e. matter would not exist without soul. It is called objective because God is considered a reality that exists independently of the subject, i.e. from a person. The philosophy of the Renaissance and Modern times, which recognized the authority of the Church, is also generally characterized by subjective idealism. In the 19th century, the materialistic direction of European monism was revived - for example, Marxism. Existential philosophy laid the foundations of subjective idealism. human soul was considered the creator and receptacle of the world, hence subjectivism and idealism. Monism is also characteristic of some areas of Eastern philosophy: some schools of Buddhism believe that the fundamental principle of existence was the thought of the universal Buddha Dainiti, which gave rise to the other five primary elements; the totality of these six substances forms all the objects and phenomena of the surrounding world - this is also objective idealism. Mahyadmiks, for example, stand on the positions of subjective idealism, like Berkeley denying the reality of the material world.

feature European philosophy, which largely determined its appearance, is precisely the tendency to monism. Throughout the history of European philosophy there has been an ongoing dispute between materialism and idealism. The dispute, which was reduced to the formulation of the so-called. fundamental question of philosophy: “What comes first: matter or consciousness?” . Until now, various schools of European monism offer their own answers to this question. The question is really serious, but it is completely meaningless if you take the point of view dualism .

dualism is a philosophical direction that draws a picture of the universe, based on two equivalent principles. The dualistic view of the world allows you to get rid of the need to answer the main question of philosophy, for example. One can recognize matter and consciousness as two equal substances, the totality of which creates the surrounding world.

Dualism is uncharacteristic of traditional European philosophy. Some dualistic tendencies can be traced in the teachings of Descartes and Kant (although both of them are rather subjective idealists). Eastern philosophy leans more towards dualism. Suffice it to recall the Taoist concepts of "yin" and "yang".

Modern European systems philosophy also adheres to the dualistic concept. According to the representatives of this philosophical direction, two opposite substances coexist eternally in the world and carry out mutual transitions: the world of substances (concentrated matter consisting of atoms and molecules) and energy world (scattered, matter, all kinds of subatomic structures). Entropy processes lead to the transformation of concentrated matter into scattered matter, while negentropic ones have the opposite direction. The division of matter into concentrated and scattered matter is supplemented by its division into mass (forming objects of the material world) and massless (forming phenomena of the spiritual world).

The third version of the ontology is pluralism , recognizing the equality of several principles. Pluralism does not include fundamental world philosophical concepts, but more private areas, for example, socio-philosophical, anthropological, etc. Pluralism tries to theoretically substantiate the accepted fundamental principles.

The most amorphous variant of the ontology is eclecticism . Eclecticism can take one or more basic positions, but without justification, i.e. no theory as such. Eclecticism is characteristic of those areas of philosophy in which it is understood as a form of creativity. Postmodern, for example.

Depending on what is put at the foundation of the world, what sphere of being is attributed to primacy (nature or spirit), all philosophers are divided into materialists and idealists. Both materialism and idealism have an equally fundamental philosophical justification, and both of these currents in philosophy are equally represented by great thinkers of the past and the present. The choice between these currents in philosophy is determined by personal preferences related to education, upbringing, the system of shared values, and the general way of thinking.

There are four main forms of life

The concept of being is abstracted from all the specific differences between things, objects and processes, except for one of their features, namely their existence, which gives the world its initial integrity and makes it an object of philosophical reflection. And one of the first questions that arise on the way of philosophical understanding of the world is the question of the diversity of ways and forms of being.

It is advisable to single out the following different, but also interconnected basic forms of being.

1) The existence of nature - the existence of things (bodies), processes, which in turn is divided into the existence of things, processes, states of nature, the existence of nature as a whole and the existence of things and processes produced by man, represents the existence of inanimate and living nature, this is the Universe , space, human habitat; The prerequisite, the basis of human activity were and remain today things, processes, states of nature that arose, existed before man, exist outside and independently of the consciousness and actions of people ("first nature"). Then man began to powerfully and widely influence the nature of the Earth. A whole world of things, processes, states produced by mankind has arisen. In philosophy it has been called "second nature". Nature is objectively real and primary also in the sense that life and human activity are impossible without it. Without it, objects and processes produced by man could not even appear. The "second nature" strictly depends on the first - on nature as such, on its things, processes, laws that exist before, outside and independently of man. What is the difference between the "second nature" and the first? On the one hand, the material of the first nature embodied in it is objective and primary in philosophical sense a reality that develops according to laws independent of man and mankind. On the other hand, objects of "second nature" embody or, to use Hegel's term, "objectify" the work and knowledge of man. The existence of objects and processes of "second nature" lies in the fact that they represent an indissoluble unity of natural material and objectified spiritual (ideal) knowledge.

2) Human being is (conditionally) divided into human being in the world of things and specifically human being. The specificity of human existence is that it is carried out not only in the natural world, but also in society, where a person acquires political, economic, moral and other qualities, communicates, behaves and becomes a person. Man simultaneously belongs to two worlds: to the natural bodily world as its organic part and at the same time to the world of consciousness, the psychic world, belonging to which makes him a man. It is the presence of consciousness in a person that allows him not only to be, to exist, but also to reason about the existence of the world and his own existence. Man's way of being physical world determined by its belonging to the mental world and vice versa. In this respect, human being is a dialectical unity of the objective-objective and the subjective, body and spirit.

In human existence, no matter how specific it may be, the primary prerequisite is the existence of the body (existence in accordance with the laws of life, the cycles of development and death of organisms, with the cycles of nature, etc.) and the need to satisfy its necessary (in this sense, fundamental) needs. The existence of an individual person is a directly given dialectical unity of body and spirit. The functioning of the body is closely related to the functioning of the brain and nervous system, and through them - with the psyche, with the spiritual life of the individual.

It can be said that the peculiarity of human existence consists in the emergence of a specific, unique for living nature, "non-rigid" and non-universal conditionality of human being from the side of his body. Non-rigidity is manifested in such facts, for example, as the ability of a person to regulate, control his fundamental needs, satisfying them not in simple accordance with the manifestations of nature, but within the limits and forms determined by society, history, his own will and self-consciousness of the individual. The non-universality lies in the fact that many human actions that could be determined (and are sometimes determined) by a kind of egoism of bodily needs are very often regulated by other motives - spiritual, moral, social.

3) The being of the spirit (spiritual, ideal being) is divided into individualized spiritual and objectified (non-individual) spiritual; constitutes the unity of individual and social consciousness. Thanks to individual consciousness, a person can realize various activities, choice, set goals and objectives, creating a "second" nature as the main element of culture. The objectified (objective) spirit means public consciousness, i.e. consciousness of individual groups and communities. The spiritual world of man is also characterized by a dual existence. Keeping in mind precisely the differences in the form of being, the spiritual can be conditionally divided into two large subspecies - the spiritual, which is inseparable from the concrete life activity of individuals (individualized spiritual), and the one that can exist and often exists also outside individuals, or, speaking otherwise, it becomes objectified (the non-individual, objectified spiritual). The subjective spirit is the inner mental world of a person with all levels of his existence from the unconscious to self-consciousness. This world is the property of an individual. At the same time, the joint activity of individuals in society necessarily gives rise to the objectified or intersubjective spiritual, i.e., such spiritual formations that are no longer just the property of individual individuals, but the property of a community of individuals, the property of the spiritual culture of society. One example of the objectively spiritual is human language. The results of the work of individual consciousnesses are objectified in the language, and the innermost thought of the individual, behind which stands the work of his entire psyche, becomes the property of the community. It seems to cease to belong to the world of the subjective spirit, acquiring an objective existence as independent of the mental world of an individual. These forms of objective spirit include all forms of social consciousness: science, religion, morality, art, and so on.

Of course, there is an organic relationship between the objective and subjective spirit both in the process of formation and in the processes of development and functioning. The inner mental world of a person develops to the level of consciousness, only by joining the objectively existing spiritual culture of mankind, and the objective spirit itself, the world of knowledge, morality, art, religion exists as long as the existence of individuals and the world of their consciousness is assumed.

4) The existence of society is the joint life of people who have a certain organization and system of social relations. It is divided into individual existence (the existence of an individual in society) and the existence of society.

IDEALISM (from the Greek ίδέα - visible, appearance, form, concept, image), one of the fundamental philosophical currents or directions, which considers the ideal in one form or another to be valid (idea, consciousness, spirit, absolute, etc.). As a term, it has been used in modern European philosophy since the 18th century, although the philosophical doctrine it denotes took shape already in ancient Greek philosophy. The concept of "idealism" is ambiguous and has undergone significant changes in the course of its history, as a result of which the entire previous history of philosophy has often been retrospectively rethought. Depending on whether we are talking about a theoretical-epistemological or metaphysical-ideological aspect in the understanding of the "idea", as well as on what is considered as an opposing current, they distinguish different kinds idealism.

G. W. Leibniz, who first used the term “idealism”, considered idealism in opposition to “the greatest materialists and the greatest idealists”: he considered Epicurus and his supporters as a model of the first, according to the hypothesis of which “everything happens in the body as if it did not exist soul”, a model of the latter - Plato and his followers, according to the hypothesis of which “everything in the soul happens as if there were no body at all” (Leibniz G. V. Soch. M., 1982. T. 1. S. 332) . Among the idealists, Leibniz attributed the representatives of Cartesianism. Already in the 18th century, "spiritualism" (M. Mendelssohn and others) acted as a synonym for idealism. An extreme case of idealism, which recognizes that there is only own soul, was called in the 18th century "egoism" (in modern usage it is called solipsism).

I. Kant and T. Reed considered J. Berkeley to be the founder of idealistic metaphysics (he himself called his doctrine “immaterialism”), however, Reed also referred to the “ideal systems”, or “theories of ideas”, the philosophy of J. Locke and D. Hume . The reason for this discrepancy turned out to be a different understanding of the “idea”: if for English and French philosophy almost any representation (for example, “red”) could turn out to be an idea, then for the German tradition (at least starting with Kant), the concept of reason predominantly acts as an idea, which, like Plato, has a supersensible and universal character, and the use of an “idea” in the sense of any representation turns out to be impossible. Russian philosophy in this matter follows the German and ancient Greek traditions.

I. Kant used the concept of idealism not only in polemics with his opponents, but also - in a new meaning - to designate his own position. He distinguished between formal and material, or psychological, idealism. Material, or “ordinary”, idealism “doubts the existence of external things themselves or denies them”, while in case of doubt about the existence of objects in space outside of us, we are talking about problematic (skeptical) idealism (R. Descartes), and in the case of declaring things in space are a product of the imagination, we are talking about dogmatic, or "mystical and dreamy", idealism (J. Berkeley). Such idealism, whose conclusions about the unproved existence of things outside of us, Kant considered "a scandal for philosophy and universal reason", he opposed his own formal, or transcendental, idealism in the Critique of Pure Reason, which was based on his doctrine of empirical reality and transcendental reality. ideality of space and time. The first consists in the objective significance of space and time for all objects that can be given to our senses, while the second means the absence of claims to absolute reality and the impossibility of comprehending the properties of "things in themselves" through the senses. Faced with the identification of his own position with the teachings of Berkeley, Kant included in the 2nd edition of the Critique of Pure Reason the section "Refutation of Idealism" and proposed his own formal, or transcendental, idealism, in order to avoid confusion, also be called critical idealism, according to which "we are given things as outside of us are the objects of our feelings, but we don’t know anything about what they are in themselves, but we know only their phenomena ”(Kant I. Sobr. soch. M., 1994. Vol. 4. P. 44). Thus, critical idealism does not refer to the existence of things, which Kant "didn't even dream of" doubting, but only to the sensible conception of things. However, already J. G. Fichte recognized the existence of things as dogmatism. Trying to overcome it and build a system of “true” idealism, or criticism, which he did not find in Kant, Fichte laid the concept of the Self at the foundation of philosophy, identifying transcendental idealism with his own “scientific teaching”. If Kant traced the opposition of ideality and reality, then Fichte tried to combine them in a kind of synthesis of idealism and realism (“real-idealism” or “ideal-realism”).

F. W. Schelling, interpreting Fichte’s teaching of science as “subjective” idealism, tried to present idealism “in its entirety”: the system he built was a combination of transcendental philosophy (removal of nature from the intelligentsia) and natural philosophy (removal of the intelligentsia from nature) and received terminological design in the distinction between “relative” (“transcendental”) and “absolute” idealism as a kind of “whole” underlying both realism and “relative” idealism (Schelling F. Ideas for the philosophy of nature as an introduction to the study of this science. St. Petersburg ., 1998. S. 141-142). The interpretation of absolute idealism also corresponded to Schelling's understanding of the absolute as the indistinguishability of the real and the ideal.

G. W. F. Hegel, believing, like F. W. Schelling, that all philosophy is essentially idealism, characterized his position as the point of view of "absolute idealism", according to which "the real definition of finite things consists in that they have the basis of their existence not in themselves, but in the universal divine idea” (Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences. M., 1975. Vol. 1. S. 162-163).

Philosophical development in Germany from J. Kant to G. W. F. Hegel, including F. Schlegel, F. Schleiermacher, Novalis, and others, is often referred to as German idealism. Despite the widespread use of this term, its boundaries are very blurred. Questions remain debatable as to whether the philosophy of Kant should be included in German idealism, whether it ends with Hegel or with A. Schopenhauer and others. For many representatives of Russian religious philosophy of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (N.A. Berdyaev and others ) idealism was practically identified with German ("Germanic") idealism.

In parallel with the crisis of Hegelian speculative philosophy in the middle of the 19th century, idealism itself as a philosophical doctrine was criticized by thinkers of various trends (S. Kierkegaard, L. Feuerbach, K. Marx and F. Engels, F. Nietzsche, etc.). V. Dilthey, in the typology of worldviews he developed, singled out “naturalism”, “objective idealism” and “idealism of freedom” as three main types (Types of worldview and their discovery in metaphysical systems // New ideas in philosophy. 1912. No. 1. P. 156-157, 168-169, 176-177). Along with the reconstruction of Hegelian philosophy in various variants of neo-Hegelianism (British absolute idealism, etc.), criticism of it could initiate the development of new varieties of idealism, starting from the “abstract” Hegelian system (for example, S. N. Trubetskoy’s “concrete idealism”). In the 20th century, idealism was criticized by neopositivism and analytic philosophy. In general, the opposition of idealism - materialism, characteristic of the 18th and 19th centuries, lost its sharpness in the 20th century, and the problems of classical idealism were developed and discussed in a variety of philosophical directions.

Lit .: Problems of idealism. M., 1902; Florensky P. A. The meaning of idealism. Sergiev Posad, 1914; Idealist tradition: from Berkeley to Blanshard / Ed. by A. S. Ewing. Glencoe, 1957; Willmann O. Geschichte des Idealismus. Aalen, 1973-1979. Bd 1-3; Voßkühler F. Der Idealismus als Metaphysik der Moderne. Würzburg, 1996; Kroner R. Von Kant bis Hegel. 4.Aufl. Tube., 2006. Bd 1-2.

Concrete idealism

Concrete idealism

For the first time, the term "concrete idealism" was used by Sergei Trubetskoy in relation to his own philosophical system, as well as to describe the main trend of all Russian religious philosophy. Using this term, Trubetskoy contrasted the Russian philosophical tradition with the classical systems of Western idealism (Descartes, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel), which he called abstract or abstract idealism. In these systems, the absolute beginning is Reason, considered as something abstract, one-sided in relation to a specific living rational being (human or God). Concrete idealism as the absolute beginning of everything that exists is supposed to be a concrete Being, which is an original real being, containing as its abstract moments all the usual definitions for classical idealism - thinking, subject, spirit. In this case, the mind is recognized as limited (that is, rationalism is not considered a universal philosophical paradigm): the concrete Absolute is known in a “superrational”, mystical, intuitive act.

We can agree that such an understanding of the absolute principle and its knowledge is quite characteristic of Russian philosophy. The “senior” Slavophiles (A. Khomyakov and I. Kireevsky) were already criticizing Western philosophy accordingly; they assumed that philosophy should take as the Absolute the idea of ​​a living personal God, characteristic of the religious worldview. This approach was most clearly implemented by Vladimir Solovyov in the works "Critique of Abstract Principles" and "On God-Mankind", his criticism of the Western tradition in the work "The Crisis of Western Philosophy" is based on the same grounds. The term "concrete spiritualism" was used by Lev Lopatin to characterize his philosophical system; he contrasted the concepts of "concrete" and "abstract" in the same way. Nikolai Lossky also called his philosophical system concrete idealism.

Although the original definition of “concrete idealism” implied the opposition of the Russian philosophical tradition to the systems of Western idealism (primarily the systems of Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel), at the beginning of the 20th century a new generation of Russian thinkers gave a completely different assessment of German idealism, saw in it not so much an opposite in attitude to Russian religious thought, how much is its natural source and foundation. Pavel Vysheslavtsev, in Fichte's Ethics (1914), insisted that the traditional image of Fichte as a straightforward subjective idealist is profoundly wrong; Vysheslavtsev argued that Fichte's late system is based on the recognition of the living personality of God as the Absolute, which is incomprehensible in a rational way and infinitely concrete in its content. Ivan Ilyin in his book "Hegel's Philosophy as a Doctrine of the Concreteness of God and Man" (1918) convincingly showed that the Hegelian Absolute - speculative thinking - must be understood precisely as an absolutely concrete and living principle, i.e. just as the model of concrete idealism suggests. The same Ilyin in his article “The Crisis of the Idea of ​​the Subject in the Science of Fichte the Elder” (1912) opposed Fichte’s system to all forms of Western idealism, believing that he was the first to try to accept a specific human person as the absolute beginning of philosophy. Finally, Sergei Levitsky in his book Fundamentals of the Organic Worldview (1946) already quite confidently refers Fichte, Schelling and Hegel to the direction of concrete idealism, believing that German philosophers choose a specific spirit as the Absolute, understood by analogy with the human "I", but raised to the superhuman level. It should also be taken into account that two bright Russian thinkers, who can also be attributed to the direction of concrete idealism - Semyon Frank and Lev Karsavin - saw the source of their philosophical constructions in the teachings of Nicholas of Cusa; this means that in the Russian thought of the first half of the 20th century, concrete idealism was understood as a rather old tradition in European philosophy, going from Nicholas of Cusa to the German idealism of the early 19th century and then finding its full expression in Russian philosophy - in Vl. Solovyov and his followers .

Literature

Berdyaev N.A. Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov. Chapter IV. Khomyakov as a Philosopher. Gnoseology and metaphysics. Tomsk, 1996. S. 75-92.

Gaidenko P.P. "Concrete idealism" S.N. Trubetskoy // Trubetskoy S.N. Works. Moscow, 1994. S. 3-41.

Evlampiev I.I. The concept of consciousness S.N. Trubetskoy in the context of European philosophy of the twentieth century // Questions of Philosophy. 2007. No. 11. S. 33-44.

Evlampiev I.I. Divine and human in the philosophy of Ivan Ilyin. St. Petersburg, 1998.

Ilyin I.A. Philosophy of Hegel as the doctrine of the concreteness of God and man. St. Petersburg, 1993.

Levitsky S.A. Fundamentals of the organic worldview // Levitsky S.A. Freedom and responsibility. Moscow, 2003.

Lossky N.O. The Idea of ​​Concreteness in Russian Philosophy // Questions of Philosophy. 1991. No. 2. S. 125-135.

Polovinkin S.M. Concrete substantial spiritualism of L.M. Lopatina // Bulletin of the Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities. 2008. Vol. 9. No. 2. S. 172-180.

Solovyov V.S. Criticism of abstract beginnings // Solovyov V.S. Works. In 2 volumes. Moscow, 1988. Volume 1. S. 581-744.

Solovyov V.S. The Crisis of Western Philosophy (Against the Positivists) // Solovyov V.S. Works. In 2 volumes. Moscow, 1988. Volume 2. S. 3-138.

Trubetskoy S.N. Foundations of idealism // Trubetskoy S.N. Works. Moscow, 1994. S. 594-717.

I.I. Evlampiev