Truth: relative or absolute? Definition of truth.

Absolute and relative truth are important categories in the conceptual apparatus of the dialectical materialist doctrine.

They serve as a reflection of the dialectical nature of cognition, interpret the attainability

Surrounding man the world that opens in knowledge and is subject to transformation is distinguished by the properties of inexhaustibility and infinity.

The peculiarity of its structure is in extreme complexity.

His interactions, relationships and connections are limitless.

When trying to describe and cognize these properties and features, problems arise that have been around for many millennia.

They are connected with the fact that not a single researcher has been able to express all the richness of the world in any description since the beginning of time.

At the same time, in many vivid and deep testimonies one can find magnificent descriptions of the partially known side of the world.

Dialectic recognizes that truth is, beyond any doubt, objective. It is in this capacity that it (truth) is known.

However, on the path of cognition, a very specific question arises: "What is the ratio of the two subjects to cognition: the absolute and the relative?"

The answer should give an idea of ​​how exactly the truth is known: instantly and holistically, immediately and completely, or, on the contrary, located in time, in parts, gradually and progressively?

By providing such an answer, philosophy recalls that the human mind in different situations penetrates the understanding of reality to different depths. Knowledge corresponds to reality with varying degrees of accuracy.

Some reflect reality in a holistic way. Others do it only partly.

Each individual, as well as a single generation, is limited in knowledge. The limiting factors are historical conditions, a certain level of development of technology and technology in experiments, science and production at various stages of their formation.

For these reasons, human knowledge, on any arbitrarily taken interval historical development appears in the form of relative truth.

Relative truth is knowledge that does not fully correspond to reality.

Such a truth is only a relatively faithful reflection of an object that does not depend on humanity.

Reflects reality very accurately. It is not just objective, but objective to the fullest extent.

Relative truth, in principle, cannot claim to reflect the world in its entirety.

Is it possible to demand from absolute truth such knowability, which relative truth is incapable of?

In order to answer this question correctly, we must remember that many propositions of materialist dialectics contain a contradiction.

On the one hand, absolute truth could be cognized as an integral and complete phenomenon in all its manifestations and in full versatility. After all, things are fully knowable, and the capacity of human knowledge is unlimited.

But on the other hand, the very presence of relative truth complicates the possibility of knowing the absolute truth. After all, relative truth is ahead of absolute truth whenever knowledge is placed in certain, specific conditions.

However, in such a case, can the knowledge of absolute truth take place at all?

Simultaneously and comprehensively, completely and in all its versatility - no.

In the cognitive process, which is endless - no doubt, yes.

The development of more and more new sides, links, truth occurs in the approximation to it as scientific achievements.

The relativity of truth is the driving force in history.

In the knowledge of relative truths, people come to know the absolute truth. This is the essence of progress.

ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE TRUTH - categories of dialectical materialism that characterize the process of development of knowledge and reveal the relationship between: 1) what is already known and what will be known in the further process of the development of science; 2) by the fact that, as part of our knowledge, it can be changed, clarified, refuted in the course of further development science, and that which will remain irrefutable. The doctrine of Absolute and Relative Truth gives an answer to the question: "... can human ideas expressing objective truth express it at once, entirely, unconditionally, absolutely, or only approximately, relatively?" (Lenin V. I. T. 18. S. 123). In this regard, absolute truth is understood as complete, exhaustive knowledge about reality (1) and as that element of knowledge that cannot be refuted in the future (2). Our knowledge at each stage of development is conditioned by the achieved level of science, technology and production. With the further development of knowledge and practice, human ideas about nature are deepened, refined, and improved. Therefore, scientific truths are relative in the sense that they do not provide complete, exhaustive knowledge about the area of ​​subjects under study and contain elements that, in the process of developing knowledge, will change, be refined, deepened, replaced by new ones. At the same time, each relative truth signifies a step forward in the cognition of absolute truth; if it is scientific, it contains elements, grains of absolute truth. There is no insurmountable line between absolute and relative truth. From the sum of relative truths, absolute truth is added. The history of science and social practice confirms this dialectical character of the development of knowledge. In the process of development, science more and more fully reveals the properties of objects and the relationship between them, approaching the knowledge of absolute truth, which is confirmed by the successful application of theory in practice (in public life, in production, etc.). On the other hand, previously created theories are constantly refined and developed; some hypotheses are refuted (for example, the hypothesis of the existence of the ether), others are confirmed and become proven truths (for example, the hypothesis of the existence of atoms); some concepts are eliminated from science (for example, "caloric" and "phlogiston"), others are refined, generalized (cf. the concepts of simultaneity, inertia in classical mechanics and in the theory of relativity). The doctrine of absolute and relative truth overcomes the one-sidedness of metaphysical concepts that declare each truth to be eternal, unchanging ("absolute"), and the concepts of relativism, which assert that any truth is only relative (relative), that the development of science only testifies to a change in successive delusions. and that therefore there is not and cannot be absolute truth. In reality, according to Lenin, “any ideology is historical, but what is certain is that any scientific ideology (unlike, for example, religious) corresponds to objective truth, absolute nature” (T. 18, p. 138).

Philosophical Dictionary. Ed. I.T. Frolova. M., 1991, p. 5-6.

The concept of truth is complex and contradictory. Different philosophers, different religions have their own. The first definition of truth was given by Aristotle, and it has become generally accepted: Truth is the unity of thought and being. I will decipher: if you think about something, and your thoughts correspond to reality, then this is the truth.

V Everyday life truth is a synonym for truth. “Truth is in wine,” said Pliny the Elder, meaning that under the influence of a certain amount of wine, a person begins to tell the truth. In fact, these concepts are somewhat different. truth and truth- both reflect reality, but truth is more a logical concept, and truth is sensual. Now comes the moment of pride in our native Russian language. In most European countries, these two concepts are not distinguished, they have one word ("truth", "vérité", "wahrheit"). Let's open the Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language by V. Dahl: “Truth is ... everything that is true, authentic, accurate, fair, that is; ... truth: truthfulness, justice, justice, rightness. So, we can conclude that the truth is a morally valuable truth ("We will win, the truth is with us").

Theories of truth.

As already mentioned, there are many theories, depending on philosophical schools and religions. Consider the main theories of truth:

1. empirical: truth is all knowledge based on the accumulated experience of mankind. Author - Francis Bacon.
2. sensationalistic(Hume): Truth can only be known by sensation, sensation, perception, contemplation.
3. Rationalist(Descartes): all truth is already contained in the human mind, from where it must be extracted.
4. Agnostic(Kant): truth is unknowable in itself ("thing in itself").
5. Skeptical(Montaigne): nothing is true, a person is not capable of obtaining any reliable knowledge about the world.

Truth criteria.

Truth Criteria- these are the parameters that help to distinguish truth from falsehood or error.

1. Compliance with logical laws.
2. Compliance with previously discovered and proven laws and theorems of science.
3. Simplicity, general availability of the wording.
4. Compliance with fundamental laws and axioms.
5. Paradoxical.
6. Practice.

V modern world practice(as a set of experience accumulated by generations, the results of various experiments and the results of material production) is the first most important criterion of truth.

Kinds of truth.

Kinds of truth- a classification invented by some authors of school textbooks on philosophy, based on their desire to classify everything, put it on the shelves and make it publicly available. This is my personal, subjective opinion, which appeared after studying many sources. Truth is one. Breaking it down into types is stupid, and contradicts the theory of any philosophical school or religious teaching. However, truth has different aspects of(what some see as "kinds"). Here we will consider them.

aspects of truth.

We open almost any cheat sheet site created to help pass the exam in philosophy, social science in the "Truth" section, and what will we see? Three main aspects of truth will stand out: objective (one that does not depend on a person), absolute (proven by science, or an axiom) and relative (truth from only one side). The definitions are correct, but consideration of these aspects is extremely superficial. If not to say - amateurish.

I would single out (based on the ideas of Kant and Descartes, philosophy and religion, etc.) four aspects. These aspects should be divided into two categories, not dumped all in one heap. So:

1. Criteria of subjectivity-objectivity.

objective truth is objective in its essence and does not depend on a person: the Moon revolves around the Earth, and we cannot influence this fact, but we can make it an object of study.

subjective truth depends on the subject, that is, we explore the Moon and are the subject, but if we were not there, then there would be neither subjective nor objective truth. This truth is directly dependent on the objective.

The subject and object of truth are interconnected. It turns out that subjectivity and objectivity are facets of the same truth.

1. Criteria of absoluteness-relativity.

absolute truth- the truth, proven by science and beyond doubt. For example, a molecule is made up of atoms.

Relative truth- what is true at a certain period of history or from a certain point of view. Until the end of the 19th century, the atom was considered the smallest indivisible part of matter, and this was true until scientists discovered protons, neutrons and electrons. And in that moment, the truth changed. And then scientists discovered that protons and neutrons are made up of quarks. Further, I think, you can not continue. It turns out that the relative truth was absolute for a certain period of time. As the creators of The X-Files convinced us, the truth is somewhere nearby. And yet where?

Let me give you one more example. Seeing a photograph of the Cheops pyramid from a satellite at a certain angle, it can be argued that it is a square. And a photo taken at a certain angle from the surface of the Earth will convince you that this is a triangle. In fact, it is a pyramid. But from the point of view of two-dimensional geometry (planimetry), the first two statements are true.

Thus, it turns out that absolute and relative truth are as interconnected as subjective-objective. Finally, we can conclude. Truth has no types, it is one, but it has aspects, that is, what is true from different angles of consideration.

Truth - complex concept, which remains one and indivisible. Both the study and understanding of this term at this stage by a person has not yet been completed.

Relative truth - it is knowledge that approximately and limitedly reproduces reality.

absolute truth- this is a complete, exhaustive knowledge of reality, which cannot be refuted.

The development of science is characterized by the desire for absolute truth as an ideal, but the final achievement of this ideal is impossible. Reality cannot be exhausted to the end, and with each new discovery, new questions arise. In addition, the unattainability of absolute truth is due to the imperfection of the means of knowledge available to man. At the same time, each discovery is at the same time a step towards absolute truth: in any relative truth there is some part of absolute truth.

The statement of the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus (5th century BC) “the world consists of atoms” contains a moment of absolute truth, however, in general, the truth of Democritus is not absolute, since it does not exhaust reality. Modern ideas about the microcosm and elementary particles are more accurate, however, they do not exhaust the reality as a whole. Each such truth contains elements of both relative and absolute truth.

Approaches according to which truth is only relative lead to relativism if it is considered that it is only absolute, - to dogmatism.

Absolute truth in its broadest sense should not be confused with eternal or banal truths, such as "Socrates is a man" or "The speed of light in a vacuum is 300 thousand km / s." Eternal truths are absolute only in relation to specific facts, and for more essential provisions, for example, for scientific laws, and even more so for complex systems and reality in general, there are no complete and exhaustive truths.

In Russian, in addition to the concept of "truth", the concept is also used "truth", which is much broader in its meaning: truth is a combination of objective truth and moral justice, the highest ideal not only for scientific knowledge but also for human behavior. As V.I. Dal said, truth is “truth in deed, truth in goodness”.

Lies and delusion

Lies and delusion act as the opposite of truth and denote a discrepancy between judgment and reality. The difference between them lies in the fact of intentionality. So, delusion there is an unintentional discrepancy between judgments of reality, and Lying - the deliberate erection of misconceptions into truth.

The search for truth, therefore, can be understood as a process constant struggle against lies and delusion.

№39 The ratio of faith and reason.

FAITH AND MIND

Posted on 3 January 2012 by admin in WESTERN CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF THE MIDDLE AGES with No Comments

Christian philosophy proclaimed the knowledge of God and the salvation of the human soul as the highest goal of human aspirations. This thesis has not been challenged by anyone. But the question of how the knowledge of God is achieved had different solutions. In most cases, the problem rested on the relationship between faith and reason.

The most important role of faith in the knowledge of God is substantiated in the biblical Revelation. Faith becomes not only the highest spiritual faculty of the soul, so to speak, in an abstract sense, but also the highest cognitive faculty. There were objective reasons for this. The authoritative indication of the Bible on the significance of faith is only a part of them. The other was connected with the biblical subjects themselves, ideas and subsequent church dogmas. What they claimed did not fit into the framework of human experience, and sometimes even looked fantastic. To prove, for example, the origin of a woman from Adam's rib was, to put it mildly, difficult. Therefore, there was only one way out - the rejection of the rational understanding of divine miracles (after all, they are supernatural!) And the perception of them on faith. That is why Tertullian exclaims: "I believe, because it is absurd!" This thesis dismisses the very need for a rational explanation of the truths of Revelation.

Here we must separate the wheat from the chaff. The fact is that the necessity and meaning of faith, which Christ points to, often differ significantly from the causes and meaning of faith, to which theologians appeal. Christ calls to believe in the truths that he has known objectively and reliably, since he is not able, for certain reasons (the secrecy of the spiritual teaching and the inability of the uninitiated to know it), to substantiate these truths. This is confirmed by the New Testament, which notes that the Teacher spoke to the crowd “only a parable,” which had to be believed, and “he explained everything to the disciples in private” (Mark 4:10,11,33,34; Matt. 13:2 ,34,36; Luke 8:10).?

Hence the symbolism of the New Testament, i.e. the presentation of truths not in plain text, but in symbols. Of course, the Old Testament was no less symbolic. The most enlightened theologians and philosophers understood this well. “Where can you find such an idiot,” Origen, the greatest Christian thinker of the early Middle Ages (III century), was perplexed, “who would believe that God planted trees in Paradise, in Eden, like a tiller…?” Each person, he argues, should consider all these plots "as images, under which a hidden meaning is hidden." Nevertheless, despite the fact that medieval thinking was distinguished by considerable symbolism, many biblical provisions were interpreted almost literally. Consequently, belief in them in such cases did not come from knowledge, but quite the opposite - from the inability to rationally explain this or that situation.

Thus, one of the medieval traditions (mainly in the periods of patristics and early scholasticism) denied the possibility of rational knowledge of God and Revelation. Moreover, reasonable knowledge, as well as education in spiritual quests, were considered harmful (Peter Damiani - XI century) or, at best, useless and vain (Bernard of Clairvaux - XI-XII centuries). This view, characteristic of monastic mysticism and theology, after many centuries will lead to the separation of the spheres of influence of religion and scientific and philosophical thought, which will have both its positive (departure from church dogmatism and obscurantism) and negative (dehumanization of science, deviation from ethical principles, etc.) meaning.

Another tradition, characteristic of the scholastic stage, recognized certain rights for reason. The thesis of Anselm of Canterbury, compared to the principle of Tertullian, is already more constructive: "I believe and I understand." Thomas Aquinas (XIII century) goes further and tries to reconcile faith and reason. On the one hand, this reconciliation again does not look in favor of reason and philosophy. The priority of faith is preserved. And philosophy, like Damiani, is reduced to the position of the "servant" of theology. On the other hand, the position of Aquinas contributes to a certain rehabilitation of the mind, which the scholastics cease to perceive as an opponent of faith. The mind, guided by the light of Revelation, allows a person to draw closer to God. Thus, the truths of reason and the truths of faith do not contradict each other.

This postulate of Thomas Aquinas, being transferred to the modern cultural space, opens the way to a mutual dialogue between religion and science. Moreover, some of the latest scientific trends substantiate the validity of the philosophical statements of Jesus Christ.

“ESOTERIC SYMBOLISM OF THE BIBLE AND THE SCHOLASTIC METHOD OF PHILOSOPHY

"Esoteric" - means inner, hidden, intimate. Many biblical works are based on the esoteric philosophical tradition and themselves retain a considerable amount of esotericism. The most important ideas of Revelation are expressed in symbolic language: the creation of the world and man, God the Father and God the Son, the Kingdom of God, heaven and hell, and many others. An adequate understanding of these symbols presupposes the possession of a semantic key that transfers them from the realm of fantastic religious mythology to the realm of objective scientific philosophy. There is an opinion that not even all the direct disciples (apostles) of Christ fully possessed this key. Adepts of esoteric philosophy claim that only Christ explained the most intimate provisions of his teaching to Mary Magdalene when he appeared to her for several years after his resurrection. All records, now almost lost, formed the basis of the philosophy of the Gnostics. This is where their secret teaching comes from. And that's why they took the path of the symbolic hermeneutics of the Bible.

But the knowledge of the Gnostics was recognized as heretical by the orthodox church. So she took a different path.

Instead of the unspoken principle supposed by the Gnostics, "The Word is a Symbol," scholastic philosophy gradually came to the assertion of another unspoken principle: "The Word is reality." In other words, it was assumed that the structure of a true thought (and, as a consequence, of a word) always definitely and accurately reflects the structure of being (isomorphism). Scholasticism addresses the problems of logic - how concepts (“words”) relate to each other and what stands behind them. At the same time, concepts are considered not as intermediaries between objective truth and its reasonable understanding, but as this truth itself.

The impulse to scholastic thinking was given by the logical writings of Boethius. But he understands logic in a peculiar way. He is not interested in laws, not in the rules of thought, but in purely theological questions. For example: “How is the Trinity one God and not three Deities?” The Gnostics solved them by revealing their symbolic meaning. But Boethius does not know how to do this. He plunges into the analysis of verbal constructions, which express dogmatic truths.

A few centuries later, the method of Boethius was developed and became widespread during the heyday and late scholasticism. It is called the scholastic method. Its essence is the study of concepts and verbal-linguistic constructions in isolation from reality. With this perverted form of dialectics, medieval philosophers tried to rationally comprehend theological ideas. This led to empty verbiage, many hours of discussions and multi-volume conceptual reasoning, the objective substantive value of which was very small. Philosophical thought turned out to be not only the "servant" of theology, it was excommunicated from real life problems and forced to deal with the problems of sometimes dead, verbal forms. Such was the unsuccessful attempt to use the conceptual dialectic in its scholastic interpretation as a key to the esoteric symbolism of Revelation.

In the Renaissance, scholasticism is opposed by mystical Christianity, the revived Neoplatonism, and the emerging secular philosophy and science. The symbolism of the Bible will remain a mystery to the general public for several centuries. It will be ajar only by the end of the 19th century.

MIND AND FAITH

REASON AND FAITH - the fundamental ratio of the two abilities of the human soul, which has become the most important philosophical and theological problem throughout the history of thought. "

In Antiquity, questions of faith were discussed in the context of knowledge, to substantiate the initial self-evident axioms and principles, or to characterize the sphere of opinion. The right to be whole was recognized for Mind.

In the Middle Ages, with the change in ontological principles, the meaning and meaning of faith changed. From now on, the ways of human existence assumed confession, prayer, instructions (conditions of faith), which were the way to gain eternal and unchanging truth.

Three periods can be distinguished during which the angles of view on the problem of the relationship between reason and faith shifted. The first is before the 10th century, when reason and faith were conceived on the basis of authority. The second - 10-12 centuries, when disciplinary divergent theology and philosophy raise the question of justifying authoritative judgments by reason. Scripture, and the truths of the mind, which require proof.However, all three periods are characterized by common features. The Christian idea of ​​the creation of the world by a trinity of God - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, i.e. Omnipotence, the Word-Logos and Goodness, was based on revelation Holy Scripture. Confession higher power, which creates the world with reason and good will, gave grounds for the demand for faith, which, due to the incomprehensibility of this act of creation, could not be considered exclusively in a cognitive context. Recognition of the limitations of the human mind in comparison with Divine Wisdom meant that the mind participates in the knowledge of God together with other, no less important abilities; a person was considered concentrated only when his intellect was reduced to the heart, that is, when the mind became diligent and the heart prophetic. From now on, a person appeared not in two dimensions - soul and body, as in Antiquity, but in three - body, soul and spirit, where the spirit carried out the communion of man to God through goodness, thereby giving faith an ontological status, philosophy directed to the beginnings of being, from now on could not ignore faith and certainly had to join in the search for correspondences between reason and faith. Already in the 2nd century in contrast to Gnosticism, which preached the impossibility of the unity of reason and faith, representatives of the Alexandrian catechetical school, and above all Clement of Alexandria, proclaimed their harmony, believing that the harmony of faith and knowledge can make a person a conscious Christian. Faith in a good and rational foundation of the world is the beginning of philosophy. A rightly directed mind contributes to the strengthening of faith.

Faith presupposes the existence of indefinable principles (Light, Reason, Beauty, Life, Good, Wisdom, Omnipotence, One, Thinking, Love), which can be witnessed or contemplated, as well as the transformation of the entire human being, who is aware of his contact with God, enlightening person. This inner light overshadows philosophy itself. In this sense, philosophical reason goes into voluntary slavery to religion. Philosophy is seen as the servant of theology.

Tertullian focused on the faith underlying being, because he considered the very name of Christ to be the subject of faith, which, in his opinion, comes from “anointing” or “pleasantness” and “kindness”. The meaning of this name refers, therefore, to the foundation of being (it is Kindness) as an unshakable principle; and to the originality of being, the path to which is cleared by communion and anointing. Attention to the idea of ​​the name is connected with the idea of ​​creation according to the Word, which together is both the deed and the witnessing of the deed through the name. The name as the “last word”, which has survived the vicissitudes of pronunciation, reflection, curtailment, becomes an object of faith. The name is evidence of tradition, which cannot be fiction, for fiction is peculiar to one person; it is a truth accessible to all and existing for all. Tradition as universal is the principle of trust, which is always ready for verification, which is faith proper. That which is not ready for verification is superstition unworthy of a Christian.

The guardian of continuity is the soul, "simple, uneducated, coarse." This soul is not a Christian, since Christians are not born, but it has reasons to become a Christian, arising from 1) the unreflected use of words in everyday language (“God is good”, “God gave, God took”, “God will give”, “God will judge ”, etc.), in which a person is immersed from birth, which makes him a proper person, i.e., inexperienced speaking about the name of God; 2) from harmonizing this simplicity with sacred institutions. The soul is sacralized by virtue of its nature, close to God as the first essence. Primacy allows you to judge the authority of the soul. Since its knowledge was received from God, the soul is a prophetess, an interpreter of signs, a seer of events. It is the first stage of God-given knowledge. On this basis, Tertullian builds a kind of ontology of knowledge: “the soul is older letters, the word is older than the book, and the feeling is older than the style, and the person himself is older than the philosopher and poet. The soul “speaks” in any composition; since she speaks in it, by nature close to God, then “it is necessary to trust your writings” (Tertullian. Selected works. M., 1994, p. 88), all the more so - the writings of the Divine, for chronologically they are older than any other writing . With such a hierarchy of knowledge (God - nature - the soul, in which intuitively, which is faith, wisdom is contained in a folded form), the priority of Jerusalem over Athens is natural, that is, the priority of “simplicity of heart” over stoic, platonic and dialectical reasoning.

The philosophical task of Tertullian, who lived in an era when Christianity had not yet been consolidated, was the discovery of a faith based on the idea of ​​creation. A different task faced Augustine, who lived during the period of established Christian dogmas: the emphasis was on the mutual substantiation of reason and faith, in particular in the prayerful beginning of his “Confession”: “Give me, Lord, to know and comprehend whether to begin with invoking to Thee, or in order to glorify Thee; whether it is necessary first to know Thee or to call upon Thee. But who will call to You, not knowing You?.. Or, in order to know You, one must “call to You”? The ignorant can call not to You, but to someone else. I will seek You, Lord, calling on You, and I will call on You, believing in You, for this has been preached to us” (Confession. M., 1989, p. 53). Here we are talking about a consensual understanding of God through reason and faith: "I believe in order to understand, and I understand in order to believe." Understanding is the reward of faith - the main idea of ​​Augustine: "A person must be reasonable in order to want to seek God" ("On the Trinity"). Faith for him is indistinguishable from authority. Authority and reason are two principles that attract a person to knowledge under the condition of personal transformation.

John Scott Eriugena separates the concepts of faith and authority: authority is born from true reason and is the name of the bearer of this reason, while faith is the correctness of reason and, in this sense, reason itself, “true religion”, he identifies with “true philosophy”.

The second period is associated with the beginning of the disciplinary differentiation of the functions of philosophy and theology, which occurred at the time of the appearance of scholasticism. The development of the technique of logical research, the derivation of logic beyond the limits of grammar, associated with the works of Anselml of Canterbury, Gilbert of Porretan, Peter Abelard, led to the fact that the demonstration of the order of analogies of thinking was replaced by a system of proofs for the existence of God, which served as a formal basis for the autonomization of the mind. It became necessary to prove religious truths by rational means. Anselm of Canterbury presented the first proof of the existence of God. In the Monologue, he gave 4 a posteriori proofs (the first comes from the premise that everything strives for the good; there are many good things, but only one gives rise to others; the second - from the idea of ​​a non-spatial magnitude along the vertical, where there is a peak, in relation to which everything else will be inferior; the third - from being as a whole, the fourth - from the steps of perfection: the highest perfection crowns the hierarchy); in "Proslogium" - a priori (ontological or simultaneous) proof: from the analysis of thinking about God follows the inevitability of his existence. Reason here begins to act not just in the mode of faith, it articulates its own positions, different from faith, logically reconciling the foundations of religion. And although in the end their principles coincide, there are attempts to isolate reason and faith. This was most clearly expressed in the treatise of Peter Abelard “Yes and No”, where the opposite statements of different authorities on the same religious issue were brought together: the harmonization of human freedom and Divine predestination, the relationship of the two (Divine and human) natures of Christ, the responsibility of man in context of Divine omniscience, unity and trinity of God. And although both Anselm and Abelard still repeat Augustine’s formula “I understand in order to believe, and I believe in order to understand,” the tendency for its internal rupture, opening up the possibility of philosophizing outside of faith, is obvious.

In the 12th century there already exist such diversified philosophical schools, like Shargrskaya, Saint-Vigorskaya, Lanskaya, Parisian. The first studied the problems of mechanical and mathematical cosmology, the laws of which extended to the world of living nature, considered as the Book of Nature (Theodoric and Bernard of Chartres, Gilbert of Porretan). The Saint Vigor school was a model of speculative philosophy. lyro Saint Victor in "Didaskalikon" compiled a pyramid of sciences with hierarchical division, subordination, distinguishing them from the "seven free arts". The Lanskoy school developed ethical issues that were originally part of theology. The secular school of Abelard explored, in line with meditative dialectics, the problems of speech utterance, ethics and theology as a rational discipline.

The rational function of philosophy is emphasized in the treatises of John of Salisbury, who wrote that he preferred to doubt with academics than to come up with definitions for what is hidden and obscure. However, although a person strives to comprehend everything available to him with his mind, he must have the courage to recognize the existence of problems that exceed the capabilities of his intellect.

In the 13th c. The University of Paris, a free association of masters and students, was officially allowed to discuss questions of faith, which until then had been the responsibility of church hierarchs. There, for the first time, the faculties of theology and philosophy begin to exist autonomously. Almost simultaneously with the emergence of universities, monastic orders Franciscans and Dominicans, who actively participated in scholarly disputes. Philosophical treatises become the subject of wide discussion. The circle of research includes the ideas of Avicenna (Ibn Sana) and Averroes (Ibn Rushd), the Aristotelian originals of Physics and Metaphysics, which significantly transformed the intellectual image of the world. The main subjects of discussion were questions about the eternity of the world, the primacy of philosophy and the unity of the intellect. According to Averroes and his followers at the University of Paris, primarily Siger of Brabang, there is only one truth, it is reasonable, therefore, in the case of discrepancies between philosophy and theology in the interpretation of essential principles, one must take the side of philosophy. Truth also testifies to the eternity of the world and the unity of the intellect. The dispassionate, isolated, universal intellect (Averroes calls it possible) possesses immortality, which the individual mind lacks, receiving energy from the Divine mind. The latter influences the former through fantasy, imagination, sensory sensations, by virtue of which forms of individual cognition are created.

The thesis about the immortality of only a possible, universal mind, self-sufficient and not part of the individual soul, came into conflict with the Christian dogma of a person's personal immortality. The idea of ​​the disintegration of everything individual after death nullified the question of a person's personal responsibility for his actions. Therefore, again at the forefront - and this is the third period - is the problem of the foundations of reason and faith. Thomas of Aquia, criticizing the Averroists for the idea of ​​the intellect as a substance “by its being separated from the body” and “in no way united with it as a form”, wrote, “that the aforementioned position is a mistake that opposes the truth of the Christian faith; this may seem quite clear to anyone. But deprive people of diversity in regard to the intellect, which alone of all parts of the soul is indestructible and immortal, and it follows that after death nothing but a single intellectual substance will remain of human souls; and, thus, there will be no distribution of rewards or retribution, and any difference between them will be erased ”(Fom Aquinas. On the unity of the intellect against the Averroists. - In the book: Good and Truth: Classical and Non-Classical Regulators. M., 1998, pp. 192-193). The five paths to God, pointing to his being, together are the paths leading to the unity of faith and reason.

Considering the problem of the autonomy of philosophy, Bonaventure believes that a person, even if he is able to know nature and metaphysics, can fall into error outside the light of faith. Therefore, according to Bonaventure, who follows Augustine in this matter, it is necessary to distinguish the reason led by faith, the purpose of which is to “search for God”, from the self-sufficient reason, which in fact can only be an instrument of theology, since it writes down what faith prescribes.

John Dut Scot rejects the Thomistic attitude to reconcile faith and reason, believing that philosophy and theology have different objects and methodology. Unlike philosophy, which presents methods of proof and demonstration, theology offers a way of persuasion, the first is based on the logic of the natural, the second on the logic of the supernatural and revelation. If the Averroists promote the substitution of philosophy for theology, then the Thomists and Augustinians promote the opposite. To avoid such a substitution, Duns Scotus proposes to criticize theological and philosophical concepts in order to develop a new philosophical discourse. The principle of unambiguity of being should replace the principle of ekvtokatsii. This principle assumed "simply simple concepts", not identified with others and unambiguous. The concept of being was applied to God, which was neutral with respect to the created and the uncovenant. Therefore, it met the requirements of simplicity and unambiguity. Such a concept Duns Scotus called imperfect. It is the first object of the intellect and helps to understand through the study of the modes of being that the cause of things is beyond the world of things, and this is the proof of the existence of God.

William Oknam considered the mediation of reason and faith by philosophical or theological concepts futile, since the levels of the rational, based on the logical eye

appearances, and faith based on morality and not the result of obvious inferences, are asymmetrical. Therefore, the spheres of reason and faith do not intersect.

The theory of the duality of truth led not only to a disciplinary separation of philosophy and theology, but also to the almost complete disappearance of such a direction as conceptualism (up to modern era). However, the phenomenon of the "believing mind" did not disappear in subsequent times, becoming from the universal basis of thinking or its part, or the basis of individual disciplines, primarily theology.

In modern times, attempts at the philosophical return of the “Living God” as opposed to the infinitely extended and external world of God the Object were undertaken by B. Pascal. His religious philosophy was a kind of reaction to the emerging scientific methodological thinking. The mind and heart, according to Pascal, are “the gates through which the worldview creeps into the soul” and which correspond to natural, clear and mutually substantiating principles - understanding and will (Pascal B. Pensées. R., 1852, p. 32). The order of the mind is beginnings and demonstrations, the order of the heart is love. These fundamental principles are not subject to proof, because “man does not have such natural knowledge that would precede these concepts and surpass them in clarity” (ibid., p. 21), and Pascal considers such a lack of evidence “not a defect, but rather a perfection” (ibid., p. 20). Neither the immensity of space, nor the immensity of time, number or movement, both the immeasurably small and the immeasurably great, cannot be substantiated, “but only through confident reasoning both of them acquire the utmost natural clarity, which convinces the mind much more than any speeches” (ibid., p. 20). The foundations of the heart and mind, according to Pascal, are features human nature, which in fact is “the union of two natures” - physical and Divine. Dual nature determines human freedom, since it is impossible to conceive of the non-freedom of that which has the Divine essence. Focusing on human existence with its natural oddities, which prompted the introduction of such concepts as Horror, Anguish, Fear, and on the application of the method of experimental sciences to questions of faith, Pascal, of course, belongs to the founders of the new thinking, although he reveals a medium * non-agenistic-religious reaction on the logicism and methodologism of the emerging Sciengist trend, which allows the idea of ​​the Creator only in order to set the world in motion. Pascal, who opposes all philosophy, considers theology to be “the focus of all truths,” and philosophy to be a mediating discipline that “imperceptibly leads” to it.

The Enlightenment turned the mind into a starting point, identifying faith with prejudice and error. I. Kant, seeking to limit faith, along with liturgical religion, presupposes the existence of a faith of reason (“religion within the limits of reason alone”) as a pure faith in goodness, moral laws, love and duty. F. V. I. Schelling, beginning with the affirmation of the religion of reason, at the end of his life came to the affirmation of the philosophy of revelation and theosophy as the highest development of religious faith. For G.V.F. For Hegel, the ascent from the abstract to the concrete is the way of introducing a person to faith and the truths of religion, which led him from criticizing Christianity and asserting a “positive religion” to rationalizing the Christian faith.

A. Schopenhauer, opposing Hegelian panlogism, attached great importance to the idea of ​​a believing mind, believing science is not so much a cognitive activity as a function of the will. It is precisely this distinction that determines his idea that “true virtue and holiness of thoughts have their primary source not in deliberate arbitrariness (deeds), but in knowledge (faith)” (The world as will and representation. - Collected works in 5 volumes, vol. 1. M., 1992, p. 374). With Kierkegaard, opposing any philosophical system capable of “enclosing the entire content of faith in the form of a concept”, considers himself a “free creator”, who does not promise and does not create any system, since only in a free study of the main categories, the relationship between ethical and religious, the “teleological elimination” of ethics, it is possible to discover the paradox of faith and then “how we enter into faith or how faith enters into us” (Kierkegaard S. Fear and Trembling. M-, 1993, pp. 16-17).

The problem of reason and faith is the most important for Christian philosophers and theologians, both Catholic - Augustinians, neo-Thomists (E. Gilson, J. Maritain), Jesuits (F. C. Copleston), and Protestant (P. Tillich). Their studies emphasize the theological context of medieval philosophy, although in the analysis of problems, reason and faith are for the most part divorced. But the very introduction of a theological context into the study of medieval philosophy significantly expanded the scope of philosophy itself, since, regardless of approaches (theological or logical), we are talking about addressing topics that arise in any philosophy as “eternal”. This approach contributed to a detailed study of medieval philosophy, which was until the beginning of the 20th century. in an abandoned state, as evidenced by the fundamental research and Gilson, and Maritain, and Copleston. Tillich places the theological mind in the field of culture, believing that both are based on the ideas of personalism, and linking the revival of a “living religion” with the concept of a personal God as a symbol indicating that “the center of our personality is comprehended through the manifestation of an inaccessible basis and abyss of being” (Theology of Culture. M., 1995, p. 332).

The problem of the believing mind (the term belongs to S. Khomyakov) is at the center of attention of Russian religious philosophy. In Russian philosophical thought (the works of V. S. Solovyov, V. Ya. Nesmelov, D. Shest, N. A. Berdyaev, P. A. Florensky, G. V. Florovsky, and others), faith was the fundamental basis of all knowledge. The emphasis was placed precisely on faith, since the basis of such consciousness was dissatisfaction with secular non-religious culture, social and state hostility to the individual, and the superficial nature of spiritual values. Such differences from the Western European understanding of the leading role of reason in cognition were caused not only by criticism of the idea of ​​classical reason, but also by a general downplaying of the role of reason, which, on the one hand, strengthened the position of faith, and on the other hand, led to occultism and theosophical, anthroposophical and primitive mysticism. In the 2nd floor. In the 20th century, however, philosophical trends appeared that not only defend the significance of reason for modern thinking, but show the weakening of the position of explaining the world, bypassing rationality as the most important cognitive ability of a person. These philosophical trends simultaneously showed the limitations of the natural-scientific, cognizing (scientific) mind of the New Age, and defended the ideas of neo-rationalism (G. Bashlyar, I. Prigozhy). J. Searle, analyzing Western European thinking, which he calls the Western rationalistic tradition and deploying the ideas of the cognizing mind in its two forms (theory

theoretical reason and practical reason), considers rational faith not belonging to discipline, but a property of one of the types of knowing reason, namely theoretical (Searle J. Rationality and realism: what is at stake? - “The Way”, 1994, No. 6, p. 203 ).

In the concept of the dialogue of cultures by V. S. Bibler, in general, a single definition of reason for all eras is called into question. “At one point, the ancient, medieval, new European spiritual spectra are concentrated and mutually determine each other, revealing simultaneous (actually cultural) being” (Bibler V.S. From science to the logic of culture. Two philosophical introductions to the XXI century. M., 1991, p. .263). Appeal to the initial principles of philosophy is a condition for the self-determination of man. The believing mind, involved in a single universal subject, turns out to be one of the forms of this self-determination.

№40 Social philosophy.

In philosophy, there are several basic concepts, among which it is worth highlighting, first of all, the definitions of the absolute itself, as well as the relative. Turning to dictionaries and reference books, we can single out the most capacious definition, which is the following concept: truth is a proven statement that is accepted as true; compliance with reality. What are examples of relative truth?

What is truth

This is primarily a process that is characterized by the perception or awareness of an object or phenomenon to the full extent. Some people tend to argue that it does not exist in principle - there is only the surrounding reality, objects, views, judgments or phenomena. Nevertheless, it is one, but in its environment some key aspects can be distinguished:

• Relative.
• Objective.
• Absolute.

Of course, the development of any science involves the achievement of an absolute ideal, the truth, but this is unlikely, since each new discovery provokes even more questions and disputes. Thus, for example, a statement like "gold is a metal" is true only if gold is indeed a metal.

What is absolute truth

To begin with, it is worth defining the concept of objective truth, which is expressed as follows - the understanding and perception of knowledge, which does not depend on any particular person, group of people, civilization and society. What is the main difference between absolute truth and relative or objective truth?

Absolute is:

• Exhaustive, fully verified, knowledge about a person, object, object or phenomenon that cannot be refuted in any way.
• Adequate and conscious reproduction by the subject of a certain object, representation of the subject as it really exists, regardless of the opinion of the person and his consciousness.
• The definition of the infinity of our knowledge, a kind of limit towards which all mankind aspires.

Many argue that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Proponents of this view are inclined to believe that everything is relative, as such, there simply cannot be actual reality. Nevertheless, some examples of absolute truth can be given: scientific laws or the facts of the birth of people.

What is Relative Truth

Examples of relative truth eloquently characterize the definition of the concept itself. So, in ancient times, people believed that the atom is indivisible, in the 20th century, scientists were inclined to believe that the atom consists of electrons, and now researchers know for sure that the atom consists of a huge number of tiny particles and their number is constantly increasing. All create an eloquent idea of ​​the relativity of the real.

Based on this, we can draw conclusions about what actually represents relative truth:

• This is knowledge (definition), which fully corresponds to a certain level of human development, but differs by not entirely verified facts or evidence.
• The designation of the boundary or final moments of human knowledge of the world, the proximity of knowledge about the surrounding reality.
• A statement or knowledge that depends on certain conditions (time, historical events, place, and other circumstances).

Relative Truth Examples

Does absolute truth have a right to exist? To answer this question, consider a very simple example. So, the expression "the planet Earth has the shape of a geoid" can be quite attributed to statements from the category of absolute truth. After all, our planet actually has such a shape. The question is different - is this expression knowledge? Can this statement give an unknowing person an idea of ​​the shape of the planet? Most likely not. It is much more effective to imagine the Earth in the form of a ball or an ellipsoid. Thus, examples of relative truth allow us to identify the main criteria and characteristics of the most important components of philosophical concepts.

Criteria

How to distinguish absolute or relative truth from error or fiction.

Respond to the laws of logic? What is the determining factor? For these purposes, there are special concepts that allow you to determine the plausibility of a particular statement. So, the criterion of truth is that which allows us to certify the truth, to distinguish it from error, to reveal where the truth is and where the fiction is. Criteria are internal and external. What requirements must they meet?

• Express in a simple and concise manner.
• Comply with fundamental laws.
• be applicable in practice.
• comply with scientific laws.

First of all, it is practice - human activity aimed at transforming the surrounding reality.

The modern concept and its key aspects

Absolute, relative, objective truth are concepts that have clear differences from each other. V modern definition Truth scientists invest the following aspects: spiritual and subjective reality, the result of knowledge, and truth as a cognitive process.

The specificity of truth deserves special attention - it cannot be abstract. Truth is always related to some time and place. the pursuit of the ideal and the search for truth will always excite philosophers and scientists. Humanity should strive for knowledge and improvement.