The word "philosophy" comes from two Greek words - "philéo" - love and "sophia" - wisdom, so in general we get - love of wisdom.

Philosophical knowledge is often defined as scientific knowledge. However, there are a number of differences between philosophy and science that have led many thinkers to question the identification of science and philosophy.

Firstly, philosophy, like science, is the predominant human activity in the sphere of thinking. Philosophy does not specifically set itself the task of testing aesthetic feelings, as art does, or moral actions, as required by religion and morality. Although philosophy can talk about both art and religion, it is, first of all, reasoning, thinking about all these subjects.

There is no doubt that philosophy is close to science by the desire not only to affirm and accept some provisions on faith, but to first try to subject them to criticism and justification. Only if these propositions satisfy the requirements of criticism are they accepted as part of philosophical knowledge. This is the similarity of philosophy and science. Like science, philosophy is a kind of critical thinking, which tries not to take anything simply on faith, but to subject everything to criticism and proof.

At the same time, there is an important difference between philosophical knowledge and scientific knowledge. All sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, etc. - are private areas of knowledge that explore only some part of the world. For example, physics studies the inorganic world, biology - the world of living organisms, sociology - society. Unlike private sciences, philosophy tries to understand the world as a whole, in the unity of inorganic and organic processes, the life of the individual and society, etc. Philosophy is the project of universal knowledge, universal science. That. Philosophy differs from the sciences in its subject of study: the sciences have parts of the world as their subject, while philosophy has the world as a whole.

Summing up summary, we can conclude that 1) philosophy is similar to scientific knowledge in terms of the method of cognition - just like private sciences, philosophy uses a critical method of cognition based on evidence and justification. 2) philosophy differs from private sciences in the subject of knowledge - unlike private sciences, philosophy tries to critically cognize the world as a whole, the most universal laws and principles.

It should be emphasized here that, until now, truly scientific knowledge has been built only within the framework of private, non-universal knowledge. Such knowledge is distinguished by high rigor and reliability, but at the same time it is private knowledge. As for the philosophical - universal - knowledge, so far, again, it has been possible to build only universal, but not too strict knowledge. It is very difficult to combine high rigor and universality in the final human mind. Usually knowledge is either strict and non-universal, or universal, but not too strict. That is why philosophy today cannot be called a true science, but rather a universal doctrine, or knowledge.

Philosophy may not differ from science in two cases: 1) when the level of development of scientific rigor is not yet high enough, and is approximately equal to the rigor of philosophical knowledge. Such a situation existed in antiquity, when all sciences were branches of philosophical knowledge, 2) when philosophy could catch up with science in terms of increased rigor. Perhaps this will happen in the future, and then philosophy will become a full-fledged synthetic science, but so far it is difficult to talk about this with certainty.

Even if philosophy today does not have a level of rigor sufficient for science, the existence of such universal knowledge is in any case something better than the complete absence of synthetic knowledge. The fact is that the creation of universal knowledge about the world, the synthesis of knowledge of particular sciences is the fundamental aspiration of the human mind. Knowledge is considered not quite true if it is broken into many unrelated fragments. Since the world is one, true knowledge about the world must also represent some kind of unity. Philosophy in no way rejects the particular knowledge of individual sciences, it should only synthesize these particular knowledge into some kind of integral knowledge. That. the synthesis of knowledge is the main method of philosophy. Particular sciences develop parts of this synthesis; philosophy is called upon to raise all these parts to some higher unity. But real synthesis is always a difficult task, which can never be reduced simply to the juxtaposition of separate parts of knowledge. Therefore, philosophy cannot simply be decomposed into the sum of all particular sciences, or philosophical knowledge can be replaced by this sum. Synthetic knowledge requires its own efforts, although dependent, but not entirely reducible to the cognitive efforts of individual sciences.

2. The main areas of philosophy: ontology, epistemology, axiology, logic

As part of philosophical knowledge, there are many directions and parts. The largest divisions of any philosophical system are its sections such as ontology, epistemology, axiology, logic

1) ONTOLOGY (from the Greek “ontos” - the existent, that which is in fact, and “logos” - the doctrine, i.e. literally “ontology” - the doctrine of the existent) - a section of philosophy that studies how an objective world that exists independently of the individual consciousness of man. This is a kind of philosophical physics. The highest concept of ontology is the concept of "being" - the completeness of everything that exists.

2) GNOSEOLOGY (from the Greek "gnosis" - knowledge, and "logos" - teaching, i.e. "epistemology" - "the doctrine of knowledge") - a philosophical theory of knowledge. The highest concept of epistemology is the concept of "truth" - the highest state of knowledge.

3) AXIOLOGY (from the Greek "axis" - axis, foundation, and "logos" - doctrine, i.e. the doctrine of foundations) - a philosophical theory of values, therefore the highest concept of this section of philosophy is the concept of "value" - the foundation and standard of consciousness. Within axiology, there are many more particular areas that explore individual values ​​or value-dependent reality. This is for example:

Philosophical ethics - the doctrine of good and evil,

Philosophical aesthetics - the study of beauty,

Philosophical anthropology- the doctrine of man, etc.

4) PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC - a branch of philosophy within which the most universal laws and principles are studied, including in the form in which they are expressed in human thinking. The highest concept of logic - "logos" - the highest law and first principle.

3. Basic Philosophical Issues

Let's consider examples of philosophical problems by sections of philosophy.

1) Ontological problems.

The problem of being - does something exist?, what does it mean to "exist"?, why does something exist at all?, what actually exists, and what only seems to exist?, what are the criteria for true existence?

The problem of types of being - what are the forms and degrees of being?, how to define a more complete being?, what is matter, life, consciousness?

The problem of causality - does every event have a cause?, does the effect necessarily follow from the cause?, are random events possible?

A number of areas of ontology are associated with the solution of ontological problems in one direction or another. For instance:

MATERIALISM is a direction of ontology that asserts that only matter exists, and consciousness is a form of matter (this position of materialism is expressed in the formula “matter is primary, consciousness is secondary”)

IDEALISM claims that, on the contrary, only consciousness really exists, and matter is one of the forms of consciousness (idealism accepts the formula “consciousness is primary, matter is secondary”).

The problem of the primacy (importance) of matter or consciousness is called by some philosophers the main question of philosophy.

DETERMINISM states that every event in the world has its own cause, from which it follows with necessity. Therefore, there is nothing random in the world.

Indeterminism, on the other hand, allows for the existence random events, i.e. events that have no cause of their own.

REDUCTIONISM - a direction that suggests that any beginning can be represented as a primary element or as a result of a relationship between some primary elements (if such primary elements are atoms, then such a version of reductionism as atomism arises).

HOLISM is the direction opposite to reductionism, asserting the existence of levels of being, when elements are more high level cannot be completely decomposed into a system of relations of lower-level elements.

2) Gnoseological problems.

Problems of Truth - Does Truth Exist? is it possible to know the world?, what are the criteria for true knowledge?, how to distinguish truth from falsehood?, is there best method knowing the truth?

Here we can point to the following areas of epistemology, one way or another resolving the problems noted.

AGNOSTICISM is a direction that denies the cognizability of the world by the human mind.

SKEPTICISM is a direction that refuses to affirmatively or negatively resolve the question of the existence of truth. Skepticism seeks to find arguments that cast doubt on any definite solution to the problem of the knowability of the world.

GNOSEOLOGICAL OPTIMISM is a trend that affirms the possibility of human knowledge of the world.

EMPIRISM claims that the main source of knowledge of truth is experience, i.e. that part of a person's consciousness that is the result of cognition based on external sense organs (vision, hearing, etc.)

RATIONALISM is a branch of epistemology that considers intellect, logic and thinking as the main source of true knowledge.

3) Problems of axiology.

Axiological problems include the problems of understanding what is value and value being?, what are the types of values?, do values ​​exist objectively or subjectively (only in the mind of a particular being)?, are there more important and less important values?, how is organized system of values?

In ethics and aesthetics, the same questions are concretized in relation to the values ​​of goodness and beauty, respectively. Anthropology studies the problem of man, his nature and origin, the meaning of his existence, etc.

In axiology, there is also a wide variety of more specific areas that provide certain answers to the questions posed.

VALUE RELATIVISM affirms the relativity of all values, denying the presence of more or less important ones among them.

On the contrary, VALUE DOGMATISM tends to assert certain values ​​as absolute and unshakable, standing above all other types of values.

There is whole line directions of axiology, providing its own answer to solve the question of the meaning human life.

HEDONISM believes that the highest value of human life is sensual pleasures.

EVDEMONISM is somewhat more complicated than hedonism, considering the happiness of a person to be the highest value. The understanding of happiness includes not only sensual pleasure, but also the social and spiritual well-being of the individual.

PRAGMATISM considers the meaning of human life to be useful and beneficial.

EGOISM affirms a person's own well-being as the highest value, in relation to which all other people act as only means.

ALTRUISM, on the contrary, considers the good of a person to be caring for other people, sacrificial service to them.

4) Problems of philosophical logic.

Such problems can be considered the problems of whether there are higher universal laws of being and consciousness?, is it possible to express them in the form of certain symbols and structures?, is it possible to create a universal language that expresses the first principles? ?

There have long been two main trends in the history of philosophical logic.

FORMAL LOGIC - logic based on the limitation of universal knowledge only within the framework of the abstract-general, i.e. the general as opposed to the particular. Formal logic is based on the principles of identity and consistency of true knowledge.

DIALECTICAL LOGIC is a project of philosophical logic, which sets itself the task of creating universal knowledge on the principles of concrete-general, i.e. such a general-one that incorporates the particular and the individual. It is assumed that the basis of dialectical logic (dialectics) should be based on some principles that go beyond the principles of formal identity and non-contradiction.

1. Philosophical knowledge always wears personal character, scientific knowledge irrespective of the individual. Philosophical knowledge reveals life experience and therefore always expresses the personality of the philosopher. Scientific knowledge certifies the facts in themselves, regardless of the attitude of the individual towards them, and therefore does not in any way express the personality of the scientist.

2. There can be no progress in philosophy. This - common feature philosophy and art. After all, it would never occur to anyone to think that contemporary art stands on a higher level of development than the art of the Renaissance. It is also absurd to think that modern philosophy is more highly developed than ancient philosophy. Unlike science, philosophical questions are eternal. It cannot be said that they are insoluble, each philosopher resolves them for himself, but the fact is that the next generation of philosophers has to answer them anew.

3. The truth of philosophical knowledge is based on personal life experience. The way to substantiate the truth is to express the philosophical understanding of the subject in a certain logical sequence that another person can reproduce and understand internal necessity author's position. The truth of scientific knowledge is substantiated by the logical construction of evidence on the basis of theoretical and empirical facts that can be certified by an independent researcher (or only theoretical facts, when it comes to mathematics or logic, which are abstracted from empirical experience).

4. Scientific knowledge is verifiable, philosophical knowledge is unverifiable.

Verification is a test for truth by referring to empirical experience. The verification process consists in the fact that conclusions are drawn from this or that statement, which are verified by empirical data through observation, measurement or experiment.

Verifiability is the fundamental verifiability of truth by referring to empirical experience.

Philosophical knowledge is based on personal life experience and therefore is fundamentally unverifiable. For example, if I make a philosophical statement that the meaning of life is in the self-determination of a person, I cannot confirm this statement either by observation, or by measurement, or by experiment. Therefore, a philosophical dispute, for example, a dispute about what is primary, matter or consciousness, is unresolvable with the help of evidence of a scientific type, it makes sense only when the vital prerequisites of one or another position are clarified.

Note.

A reservation should be made here regarding the theoretical and human sciences. Since mathematical and logical knowledge is abstracted from experience, it is not verified by referring to empirical data, but is proved purely theoretical methods. However, it does not describe the content, but the form of scientific thought, including the form of verification. Although mathematics and logic can receive empirically unverifiable knowledge (for example, it is impossible to empirically verify that the sum of the angles of a triangle exactly corresponds to 180 0, since there are no absolutely accurate measuring instruments), nevertheless, it is used when applying the verification methods themselves, for example, when measuring or evaluating experimental data.

Since theoretically obtained mathematical knowledge, unlike philosophical knowledge, is used in physics and other sciences to generalize arrays of empirical information, mathematics is precisely a scientific, and not a philosophical type of knowledge.

The humanities study not only the products of human activity and creativity, but also their interpretation. Therefore, verifiable knowledge in the humanities (such as proving a historical fact) allows for a range of possible non-verifiable interpretations, such as when we explain historical fact from a position no longer scientific, namely philosophical theory progress or from the standpoint of a cyclical understanding of history. Therefore, in the humanities, it is necessary to distinguish between what is verifiable and what is scientific fact and possible interpretations of this fact, which are philosophical and not scientific.

5. Scientific knowledge is falsifiable, philosophical knowledge is not falsifiable.

Falsifiability is the fundamental possibility of refutation by empirical experience.

This does not mean that scientific knowledge must necessarily be refuted. We are talking about the fact that we admit the possibility of refutation. There can be no scientific dispute over an irrefutable theory, and such a theory cannot be considered scientific.

(Here we should make the same reservations about the theoretical and human sciences).

Philosophical knowledge is fundamentally unfalsifiable. For example, the aforementioned statement about the meaning of life cannot only be confirmed or refuted by empirical experience.

4. Philosophical and scientific concepts

6. In philosophy and science different ways concepts are formed. Philosophical concepts are formed by semantic generalization of all possible properties of an object. A scientific concept is formed by highlighting certain properties of an object and abstracting from the object itself and its other properties. For example, each specific science will posit a person in a different way, fixing certain of his properties in the concept. Therefore, the concept of a person from the standpoint of, say, biology has a fundamentally different meaning than the concept of a person from the standpoint of jurisprudence, sociology or psychology. The concept of a person in a particular scientific discipline is not correlated with a number of human properties identified by other scientific disciplines or everyday consciousness. The philosophical concept of a person is the ultimate generalization of all his properties, both those that distinguish specific scientific disciplines, and those that are given in everyday perception. Not only one, as in science, but in general any side of a person (his bodily structure, his moral position, the forms of his communication with other people, his delusions, his appearance, its attractiveness, etc.) can be understood philosophically.

Semantic generalization - revealing the general meaning of the real and possible properties of an object. By semantic generalization, the essence of the subject is comprehended, i.e. what he is as such.

Essence is the objective content of a phenomenon, comprehended by semantic generalization, due to which it is what it is. Essence underlies all real and possible properties of a phenomenon.

Accordingly, philosophical concepts refer to the essence of the objects under consideration, and philosophy itself raises the question of essence.

Scientific concepts are formed with the help of abstraction and idealization, and do not refer to the essence of the studied subjects, but to ideal objects that model the studied subjects. With the help of abstraction and idealization, the subject area of ​​science is also distinguished.

An ideal object is a theoretical constructed object that correlates only with those properties of an object that fall within the subject area of ​​a given science.

The ideal object is abstract in nature, as it relates only to certain properties of the object, being abstracted from the rest. At the same time, an ideal object can also act as an idealized object if it includes new properties that cannot be in the observed object (for example, an absolutely black body). Those. the ideal object can be distinguished by abstraction or by abstraction and idealization.

The subject area of ​​science is the area of ​​properties isolated from the observable world, which are of a regular nature.

Abstraction is a mental abstraction from an object and those of its properties that are outside the subject area of ​​a given science. properties.

Idealization is the creation in the mind of objects and conditions that do not actually exist.

For example, if we physically describe the fall of an apple, then, firstly, we abstract from all the properties of the apple, except for physical ones, and, secondly, we consider the fall in non-existent, but in ideal conditions, that is, as if, apart from the Earth and the apple as physical objects, nothing else exists (because it is impossible to take into account an infinite number of factors that affect the trajectory and speed of the fall of an apple).

7. Philosophy can talk about things as such, about their existence, but science only talks about the patterns in accordance with which the particular properties of things are manifested, therefore it does not raise the question either about what a thing is in itself, or about does it exist.

For example, mathematics cannot raise the question of what numbers are in themselves and whether they really exist - these are already philosophical questions. The same can be said for natural sciences. Medicine studies patterns human body. Regardless of whether the physician believes that these processes are related to the material world, or believes that they exist in the world of his consciousness, for medicine as a science it is completely unimportant, since the patterns studied remain the same in any case. Of course, a scientist may believe that the material world exists, but this will be his philosophical conviction, which in no way follows from a scientific position.

8. Science does not study the whole of reality, but only what

Included in its subject area;

Naturally;

Certified by an independent observer.

An irregular phenomenon, even if everyone certifies it (for example, miraculous healing), cannot be the subject of scientific research. Therefore, science cannot study love, since love is a manifestation of the free will of a person. Science can study the natural processes that accompany love, for example, changes in the hormonal state of the body, but these accompanying processes are something other than love.

Philosophy allows us to describe personal experience, which is not confirmed by an independent observer. It is not limited to a predetermined subject area and therefore opens up the possibility of freely expanding it in the course of research. The method of semantic generalization makes it possible to make the subject of philosophy not only natural, but also phenomena that do not obey laws, for example, human freedom.

To illustrate, we can compare philosophy with the closest science to it - psychology. Both psychology and philosophy study the mental life of a person. But psychology does not study the entire content of the psyche, but only what is natural in it. Free processes are beyond the consideration of psychology. Of course, the psychologist can state the fact of their presence, but he does not have the means to study them. Let's take a situation where a person wants to save a drowning man, but is afraid of water due to a complex formed in childhood. Psychology provides the means to identify patterns in accordance with which fear of water arises, but it does not allow us to predict how exactly a person will dispose of his free choice, whether he will overcome his complex, or succumb to fear. In other words, psychology makes it possible to describe the psychological situation with which a person has to deal, but it cannot study a free person in itself. Freedom cannot be scientifically explained in accordance with psychological laws, but its understanding is possible thanks to philosophy, by semantic generalization of all aspects of the manifestation of a free personality.

5. values ​​and value self-determination of a person

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2016-04-15

What is the difference between philosophy and private sciences

So, the philosopher, unlike any other scientist, takes on what is in itself unknown.

Particular sciences first try to stake out a section of the Universe by limiting the problem, which, with such a limitation, partially ceases to be a problem.

To other sciences their object is given, and the object of philosophy as such is precisely what cannot be given.

Thus, the requirement to take a theoretical position when considering any problem is inseparable from philosophy, not necessarily to solve it, but then convincingly prove the impossibility of solving it. This philosophy differs from other sciences. When the latter are faced with an unsolvable problem, they simply refuse to consider it. Philosophy, on the other hand, admits from the outset the possibility that the world itself is an insoluble problem. And having proved this, we will learn philosophy in the full sense of the word, exactly meeting the requirements presented to it.

If physics is everything that can be measured, then philosophy is everything that can be said about the Universe.

How R. Descartes defines the beginning of all knowledge

Anyone who thinks that Descartes started the new age with a pun about the fact that we cannot doubt that we doubt - by the way, St. Augustine also said the same - has no the slightest idea about the enormous innovation of Cartesian thinking and, as a result, does not know the origins of modernity.

Doubt - this means that something seems doubtful and unreliable to me. I think and I think - one and the same. Doubt is nothing but a thought. So, in order to doubt the existence of thinking, I must involuntarily think this thinking in order to give it existence in the Universe; by the same act by which I try to abolish my thinking, I carry it out. In other words: thinking is the only thing in the Universe whose existence cannot be denied, since to deny means to think. The things I think about may not exist in the Universe, but what I think about them is certain. I repeat: to be doubtful means to seem doubtful to me, and everything in the Universe can seem doubtful to me - except what it seems to me.

The existence of this theater is problematic, because I understand by this that it seeks to be independent of me, that when I close my eyes and it ceases to exist for me or in me, it continues, at its peril and risk, to be outside of me, separate from me. , in the Universe, i.e. that it exists in itself. But thinking has a mysterious advantage, its existence, what it aspires to be, is reduced to what it seems to me - to exist for me. And since for the time being I consist only of my thoughts, let us say that thinking is the only thing in which its own essence lies, what it really is, consists only in what it is for itself. It is what it seems, and nothing more; it seems to be what it is. It exhausts its essence in its own appearance.

With regard to the theater, the situation is reversed: what the theater is or aspires to be is not limited to its appearance, visible to me. On the contrary, he strives to exist even when I do not see him, when I do not appear, when I am not present. But my vision is something that exhausts his existential desire to appear to me, when I look, my vision is inherent in me, it is obvious and immediate. And if now I am suffering from a hallucination, then this theater does not really exist, but no one can take away the sight of the theater from me.

From which it follows that the whole Universe is given only to thinking, And at the same time, it is undoubtedly given, since it consists only in the givenness of being, since it is a pure presence, a pure phenomenon, a pure appearance for me. This is a magnificent, decisive discovery by Descartes, which, like the Great Wall of China, divides the history of philosophy into two parts.

Doubt as a method, the decision to doubt because there is an understandable feeling of doubt, was not an accident in Descartes, just like his initial formulation of the certainty of doubt. The solution of universal doubt is only front side medals, or an instrument of another solution, more positive: to recognize science not as content, but only as something that can be proved. So, science, theory is nothing but a record of reality in a system of proven judgments. For doubt, as a method, is not an accident for philosophy: it is philosophy itself, considering its own inherent properties. Any proof is a proof of resistance, and a theory is a proof of a resistance that some proposition casts doubt on. Without a doubt there is no proof, no knowledge.

The degree of certainty with which we can assert that there is thought or cogitatio in the Universe is incomparable with any other assertion of existence, and this, once discovered, obliges us to base all our knowledge of the Universe on it. For theory, the first truth about reality is this: thinking exists, cogitatio est. We can't come from reality outside world: everything that surrounds us, all affairs, including our own, in their desire to exist on their own, regardless of our thoughts about them, are suspicious. But, on the contrary, there is no doubt that they exist in my thinking as my thoughts, as cogitationes.

Now the mind is the center and support of all reality. My mind gives an indestructible reality to what it thinks, if I consider it to be what it is originally - if I consider it to be my thought. This principle leads to an attempt to create a system of explanations for everything that exists, interpreting everything that, obviously, is not thinking, is not thought as consisting only in thinking, only in thought. This system is idealism, and modern philosophy, since Descartes, is fundamentally idealistic.

The similarities and differences between the two disciplines continue to be debated by scholars and researchers. For the most part, they are in relation to the knowledge of scientists and thinkers.

Origin

It is known that philosophy and science appeared in ancient Greece even before our era. Similarities and differences should be sought in that ancient era. Initially, philosophy arose as a universal science that studied everything that exists. Academies began to appear in prosperous cities. They became a platform for discussion of various opinions by scientists. They were called philosophers - translated from Greek as "lovers of wisdom."

Over time, the amount of knowledge has increased. Gradually, the first independent sciences broke away from philosophy, for example, physics. Scientists who delved into their favorite subject created special schools. Science arose at the moment when philosophers came to the conclusion that real knowledge is knowledge about something stable and unchanging. He was opposed to private opinions - observations and random reasoning of people that could not be proven.

Relationship

Concrete sciences study certain aspects of being. Philosophy, on the other hand, unites everyone, and therefore it is more important than disparate disciplines. This is how the ancient Greeks thought. For example, speakers of that time compared physics and philosophy in this way: the first studies nature and its laws, while philosophy covers not only nature, but also man. It goes beyond narrow knowledge.

Disputes about what are the similarities between philosophy and science have continued for many centuries. The relatively recent school of positivism and Marxist teaching also tried to answer this question. Proponents of these theories believe that only the philosophy that is based on scientific achievements has the right to exist. Can this be done in practice?

A universal method that would determine the similarities between philosophy and science has never been formulated. Husserl did a lot of research on this topic. He became the author of the theory of "philosophy as a rigorous science". But neither he nor his supporters have been able to achieve satisfactory results in this direction. Philosophy and science, the similarities and differences of which were especially closely studied in the 20th century, gave rise to the existentialist doctrine. His postulates directly emphasize that these two disciplines have little to do with each other.

Limits of knowledge

What is common between philosophy and science? Definitely, they are ways of knowing things. However, their methods and goals differ markedly. Science is limited, it studies only those things that are within the limits of its narrow subject. Philosophy has no boundaries, it embraces everything around. Such knowledge is vague, it is not based on clear facts.

Similarities and differences between philosophy and science can also be seen in the attitude towards empiricism. For example, for physics and biology, the acquired experience and experiments are extremely important, since without them it is impossible to prove a single theory. In philosophy, these things are treated more lightly.

Differentiation

Scientific disciplines are very different from each other. This is explained by the fact that the world is very complex - there are many cuts in it. Each of them has its own science. For example, physics and mathematics are closely related, but at the same time they have little in common with the humanities. Philosophy and science, the similarities and differences of which can be clearly studied by the example of differentiation, are not similar in that the former is monumental, while the latter is diverse and fragmented.

Scientists, as a rule, are busy with their narrow sphere. They have little interest in how their work will affect the general scientific knowledge. Philosophers have always tried in their theories to embrace the whole world with all its laws and contradictions. These were: Aristotle, Hegel, Kant and many other famous thinkers of mankind.

Attitude towards non-existence

Important differences between philosophy and science lie in their relationship to the subject of study. Thinkers are trying to explain not only the real world, but also the conditional "nothing" - something that is beyond the limits of human consciousness. Science studies only what really exists.

Non-existence is an important area for everyone philosophical schools starting from the ancient world. In China and India (one of the oldest civilizations in the world), "nothing" was the fundamental basis of any teaching. A similar attitude existed in Western European philosophy. For thinkers, "nothing" is so important, because it is one of the matters with which you can find the basis of everything that exists. Philosophers throughout the centuries have tried in various ways to find some kind of absolute - a comprehensive knowledge. Scientists do not engage in such projects. They investigate concrete facts and matters. Interestingly, the similarities and differences between philosophy, science and religion can also be drawn in relation to the absolute.

Objectivism and subjectivism

What else do philosophy and science have in common? What they have in common is that they both represent an intellectual mental activity. Their result is expressed in certain systems. The result of such activity is always different. Science strives to be objective. It relies only on dry facts. The results of long studies and experiments form the basis of Their main advantage is that they consist only of impersonal knowledge.

Philosophy also tries to be objective, but since a person is always at the center of its study, philosophers cannot exclude the opinion and attitude of a person to the subject being studied from the results of their work. The ideological position of any thinker is based on arguments that are very different from scientific ones. Therefore, any philosophy is a priori subjective. Related to this is the fact that many different schools and teachings arise within it, often contradicting each other. In science, this cannot be. If a scientist has proved a certain theory with the help of facts, then his successors will have to reckon with it in their works. Philosophers can reject and refute each other. For example, some currents of the 20th century denied the experience of the European schools of the 19th century, etc.

The role of philosophy in science

Philosophy and science do not just have similarities and differences. They are integral part each other. The first scientific theories were built on philosophical principles. Even modern scientists use those that were first tested by the sages of ancient Greece. And there is no contradiction in this.

Philosophy is a method of cognition, logic, worldview schemes. All this underlies the global and universal No scientist can understand and realize the processes of the surrounding world without the methods listed above. Thus, some philosophical techniques are the right tools for any scientific researcher. The ability to think theoretically, to put individual elements of systems into one picture - all these things are important for scientists.

Philosophy is a special, independent field of scientific knowledge.

It differs from the private sciences in particular: a) subject and b) methods studies of reality, the main feature of which is the ultimate generality and versatility.

Private(so-called specific) sciences study individual spheres of reality and their corresponding private laws, using the relevant private research methods (for example, experiment).

for instance:

Mechanics - mechanical (causes of collision of bodies and their consequences)

Economics – e.g. inflation issues ( causes of inflation, i.e. depreciation of money due to excess money supply in circulation). Inflation in astronomy (celestial bodies)?

- physics - physical laws

- astronomy - the laws of rotation of celestial bodies in star systems.

Philosophy, unlike the private sciences, explores the world in its totality (integrities and relationships) and opens (formulates) universal (universal) laws, categories, methods of cognition, the action of which is manifested all or most spheres of reality:

For instance:

1. Philosophical laws: the law of "transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones" (formulated by Hegel). It says that the transition of a phenomenon from an old quality to a new quality is carried out without fail through certainquantitative changes.

For example: 1. Water turns into steam when the temperature rises to 100 degrees. 2. You can become a specialist only when you comprehend a certain amount of material. Etc.

2. Philosophical categories (main concepts of sciences): quality, quantity, cause, effect, etc. are also used in any sciences (as opposed to categories private sciences: goods, money, energy, etc.).

3. Philosophical methods of knowledge: dialectics, induction, deduction, etc. are also universal.

A) Subjects of private sciences -individual aspects of reality, the subject of philosophy -universal : the world and man in their unity.

B) Without using empirical methods of cognition of particular sciences, philosophy solves its problems with the help oftheoretical thinking, opensuniversal patterns, developsuniversal methods of cognition, a system of categories that haveuniversal meaning for all sciences (for example, cause and effect, general and singular, necessity and chance, etc.)

2. Mutual influence of philosophy and special sciences

A. Philosophy gives the private sciences:

A universal picture of the world in its totality;

Universal laws, categories, methods of researching reality;

Value orientations of human behavior (for example, understanding the unity of nature and man, understanding of nature as a partner, and not just as a means of enrichment).

B. Private sciences give philosophy:

specific scientific data (facts), private the laws different areas reality. On their basis, philosophy makes generalizations, formulates general scientific laws, categories, methods of knowledge.

Based on the integration of this knowledge, philosophy builds a universal picture of the world.. Private scientific knowledge connects philosophy with concrete reality.