philosophy
Sep. 27th, 2011 09:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dniprovskaThe other eternal problem raising sharp discussions between the members of intellectual community is whether our perception are identical to the real world and whether absolute (complete) knowledge on the objective reality is possible.
The partisans of realistic concept hold that in human knowledge objects are grasped and seen as they really are. They are opposed by idealists who argue that in the knowledge process the mind can grasp only the appearances of things and that objects are conditioned by their perceptibility. The latter view is supported by the evident fact that a reflection of an object is conditioned not only by its own properties, but also by the properties of the substance that reflects it. To add it all our sense organs (as well as special devices) are unable to grasp simultaneously all aspects (characteristics) of complex structures or such objects as subatomic particles.
The realists in their turn argued that our sense organs give us true and undistorted images of things; they proceeded from the axiom that practice is the main criterion of truth, so if the images produced by our sense organs enable us to operate and change things, so they are identical to objective reality. None-the-less, it is practice that put realistic concept in question – to widen the circle of objects and processes being under our control we should use special devices (microscopes, telescopes, sensors, etc.), that reflect objective reality in their own way. This fact raises the problem: what image is true – that produced directly by our sense organs or that received with the help of special devices? Two different images can not be both true copies of the same object. Relativity theory which proved that perception of an object/event depends on the inertial frame of reference also undermined positions of realistic concept.
It should be mentioned that today the main epistemological problems require quite new approach. The advance of science made in 20c., demonstrated insufficiency of existing epistemological concepts: both those treating sceptically the ability of human reason to solve the riddles of existence and those believing that we perceive external objects as they really are.
To avoid confusion the very essence of cognitive process should be cleared up. There is a widely spread opinion that true knowledge that enables us to change the surrounding world implies equivalence between the ideal image (containing in our mind) and the reflected object. On these grounds idealists held that the world will always remain a mystery for human beings as our perceptions are not identical to real objects, while realists argued that we perceive the external objects as they really are because we are able to operate (produce, reproduce and modify) them. But actually production, reproduction and modification of things and processes do not require their complete, exact and undistorted reflection. For example living organisms are reproduced on the basis of DNA that regulates their internal processes, although the DNA is by no means a true copy of a living creature, but it contains information on its main structural proportions and the order of its assembly. Modification of species is also the result of modification of DNA. The same situation is with subatomic particles: we do not percept them, we can not even imagine them, but scientists organise reaction between them as they know their main quantitative characteristics (proportions). Hence to cognise something is to determine its main proportions and the order of its assembly and to present them in the form of symbols that have complementary aspects with the elements of reflected structure (or with mediator) – the rest will be arranged by itself. Sure, our sense organs do not give us true images of things, but these images contain sufficient information for grasping their ideas and qualities (functional characteristics) in the way that makes possible their reproduction and modification. Our nervous system is perfectly adapted for catching likeness and difference between various objects, retrace casual relationships (i.e. establish the order of assembly) and associating perceptions with respective symbols arranged in the order which repeats the order of things/events in objective reality.
In general, there are three main views concerning the nature and the prospects of knowledge process; each of them contains both true and wrong statements, but if extract and combine the elements of truth, there will be quite a new concept.
The first view that should be considered belongs to Kantianism (and shared by a number of modern thinkers). It reads that man can have knowledge only of a finite world of appearances and that wherever his reason attempts to go beyond this sphere and grapple with the infinite or with ultimate reality, it becomes entangled in insoluble contradictions. But more probably, everything is vice versa: it is the realm of appearances that will always remain illusive for us, in this sense every thing will be a “thing in itself” which real image will never appear to us as it will always be distorted by specific properties of our sense organs. This should not be the reason for pessimism, as to cognise a thing is not to reflect perfectly its form, but to grasp its idea (the main proportions and the order of assembly). Although things’ appearances slip off, we may penetrate into their souls and thus pave the way to the ultimate reality.
So, we have to accept the opinion suggested by dialectical materialism (Marxism) that the World is quite cognizable. But the other thesis of this epistemological concept is dubious. It reads that truth may be only relative, absolute truth (complete knowledge of a subject) is unreal, so knowledge process is infinite, its final objective will never be achieved. Such statement raises the problem of motivation for cognizing the World, as that which is endless inevitably turns into senseless. Sure, knowledge helps to make people’s life better, but a human being is mortal and to improve that which is mortal is if not completely useless, than can not be considered as the ultimate aim of knowledge process. Moreover the conditions under which life is possible are not eternal: the Universe is inflating and nobody could say for sure what results it will lead to. We may suppose that the further progress of knowledge will make humanity able to maintain necessary conditions for infinite period of time, but experience shows that discovering new laws of nature not only widens our possibilities, but also sets limits on them (for example the law of conservation of energy leads to conclusion concerning impossibility to construct perpetuum mobile). There is no doubt that man’s power over nature may be immense, but there are no unshakeable reasons that it may be unlimited.
To resolve this contradiction we should take into consideration the view pertaining to Hegelianism: G. Hegel viewed the evolution of Being as the process of self-cognition of Absolute Spirit. Hegel the main objective of cognition is comprehension of Absolute Idea (reflection of Absolute Spirit) and this Idea has already been cognized (by him). Of course, Hegel’s philosophy is by no means the crown of knowledge process, but it contains very fruitful thought that absolute knowledge (complete equality between the quantity of information containing in an object and in its reflection containing in man’s mind) may exist only as the knowledge about the most general and fundamental principles of existence that constantly show from behind single instances.
Although randomness is an attribute of existence there is no need to get complete knowledge about it, as it plays an interim role serving as the source of evolution that has finally led to emergence of Homo sapiens and constantly stimulates him to cognize the surrounding world by changing conditions of his life and making him curious. But the initial and the final state of Matter is the state under which the single and the general, the beginning and the end, the finite and the infinite are amalgamated into a single unity. To have absolute knowledge is to get complete information on this primordial state, as the whole variety of consequent events and their results has come from it. To find the formula of this Absolute the humanity should accumulate information on everything existing in the world as more as possible to extract the basic proportions of the Universe that make it able to evolve.
In the reality where energy has fluid nature immortality may exist only as perpetual reproduction of a certain object/class of objects on the basis of programme (pattern). A thing/system dies when it fails (due to this or that cause) to reproduce itself. So, it would be quite reasonable to assume that eternal existence of the Universe is none other than perpetual resurrection (oscillation): it begins with the simplest form (singularity) where only basic principles of existence were present, after that it evolves, and finally returns to the initial state. This cycle is infinite.
The main objectives of knowledge process are determined both by the nature of objective reality and of human mind. Every level of organization of matter has its own matrix which provides reproduction of its basic elements and properties, but contains no information on other levels. Human brain is able to reflect all existing laws (ideas) and deduce the most universal principles of organization, so the process of cognition plays dual role: it provides means for improving the life of Homo sapiens (that is the only creature able to reduce entropy of the World) and accumulates information necessary to extract the grains of absolute knowledge - the basic proportions of material world and the order of its assembly, for it could restore its integrity and then be scattered into myriads of fractions and start assembling and reassembling them to weave from the remnants of a supernovae a thinking creature whose striving for immortality is the pledge for immortality of Being.
The partisans of realistic concept hold that in human knowledge objects are grasped and seen as they really are. They are opposed by idealists who argue that in the knowledge process the mind can grasp only the appearances of things and that objects are conditioned by their perceptibility. The latter view is supported by the evident fact that a reflection of an object is conditioned not only by its own properties, but also by the properties of the substance that reflects it. To add it all our sense organs (as well as special devices) are unable to grasp simultaneously all aspects (characteristics) of complex structures or such objects as subatomic particles.
The realists in their turn argued that our sense organs give us true and undistorted images of things; they proceeded from the axiom that practice is the main criterion of truth, so if the images produced by our sense organs enable us to operate and change things, so they are identical to objective reality. None-the-less, it is practice that put realistic concept in question – to widen the circle of objects and processes being under our control we should use special devices (microscopes, telescopes, sensors, etc.), that reflect objective reality in their own way. This fact raises the problem: what image is true – that produced directly by our sense organs or that received with the help of special devices? Two different images can not be both true copies of the same object. Relativity theory which proved that perception of an object/event depends on the inertial frame of reference also undermined positions of realistic concept.
It should be mentioned that today the main epistemological problems require quite new approach. The advance of science made in 20c., demonstrated insufficiency of existing epistemological concepts: both those treating sceptically the ability of human reason to solve the riddles of existence and those believing that we perceive external objects as they really are.
To avoid confusion the very essence of cognitive process should be cleared up. There is a widely spread opinion that true knowledge that enables us to change the surrounding world implies equivalence between the ideal image (containing in our mind) and the reflected object. On these grounds idealists held that the world will always remain a mystery for human beings as our perceptions are not identical to real objects, while realists argued that we perceive the external objects as they really are because we are able to operate (produce, reproduce and modify) them. But actually production, reproduction and modification of things and processes do not require their complete, exact and undistorted reflection. For example living organisms are reproduced on the basis of DNA that regulates their internal processes, although the DNA is by no means a true copy of a living creature, but it contains information on its main structural proportions and the order of its assembly. Modification of species is also the result of modification of DNA. The same situation is with subatomic particles: we do not percept them, we can not even imagine them, but scientists organise reaction between them as they know their main quantitative characteristics (proportions). Hence to cognise something is to determine its main proportions and the order of its assembly and to present them in the form of symbols that have complementary aspects with the elements of reflected structure (or with mediator) – the rest will be arranged by itself. Sure, our sense organs do not give us true images of things, but these images contain sufficient information for grasping their ideas and qualities (functional characteristics) in the way that makes possible their reproduction and modification. Our nervous system is perfectly adapted for catching likeness and difference between various objects, retrace casual relationships (i.e. establish the order of assembly) and associating perceptions with respective symbols arranged in the order which repeats the order of things/events in objective reality.
In general, there are three main views concerning the nature and the prospects of knowledge process; each of them contains both true and wrong statements, but if extract and combine the elements of truth, there will be quite a new concept.
The first view that should be considered belongs to Kantianism (and shared by a number of modern thinkers). It reads that man can have knowledge only of a finite world of appearances and that wherever his reason attempts to go beyond this sphere and grapple with the infinite or with ultimate reality, it becomes entangled in insoluble contradictions. But more probably, everything is vice versa: it is the realm of appearances that will always remain illusive for us, in this sense every thing will be a “thing in itself” which real image will never appear to us as it will always be distorted by specific properties of our sense organs. This should not be the reason for pessimism, as to cognise a thing is not to reflect perfectly its form, but to grasp its idea (the main proportions and the order of assembly). Although things’ appearances slip off, we may penetrate into their souls and thus pave the way to the ultimate reality.
So, we have to accept the opinion suggested by dialectical materialism (Marxism) that the World is quite cognizable. But the other thesis of this epistemological concept is dubious. It reads that truth may be only relative, absolute truth (complete knowledge of a subject) is unreal, so knowledge process is infinite, its final objective will never be achieved. Such statement raises the problem of motivation for cognizing the World, as that which is endless inevitably turns into senseless. Sure, knowledge helps to make people’s life better, but a human being is mortal and to improve that which is mortal is if not completely useless, than can not be considered as the ultimate aim of knowledge process. Moreover the conditions under which life is possible are not eternal: the Universe is inflating and nobody could say for sure what results it will lead to. We may suppose that the further progress of knowledge will make humanity able to maintain necessary conditions for infinite period of time, but experience shows that discovering new laws of nature not only widens our possibilities, but also sets limits on them (for example the law of conservation of energy leads to conclusion concerning impossibility to construct perpetuum mobile). There is no doubt that man’s power over nature may be immense, but there are no unshakeable reasons that it may be unlimited.
To resolve this contradiction we should take into consideration the view pertaining to Hegelianism: G. Hegel viewed the evolution of Being as the process of self-cognition of Absolute Spirit. Hegel the main objective of cognition is comprehension of Absolute Idea (reflection of Absolute Spirit) and this Idea has already been cognized (by him). Of course, Hegel’s philosophy is by no means the crown of knowledge process, but it contains very fruitful thought that absolute knowledge (complete equality between the quantity of information containing in an object and in its reflection containing in man’s mind) may exist only as the knowledge about the most general and fundamental principles of existence that constantly show from behind single instances.
Although randomness is an attribute of existence there is no need to get complete knowledge about it, as it plays an interim role serving as the source of evolution that has finally led to emergence of Homo sapiens and constantly stimulates him to cognize the surrounding world by changing conditions of his life and making him curious. But the initial and the final state of Matter is the state under which the single and the general, the beginning and the end, the finite and the infinite are amalgamated into a single unity. To have absolute knowledge is to get complete information on this primordial state, as the whole variety of consequent events and their results has come from it. To find the formula of this Absolute the humanity should accumulate information on everything existing in the world as more as possible to extract the basic proportions of the Universe that make it able to evolve.
In the reality where energy has fluid nature immortality may exist only as perpetual reproduction of a certain object/class of objects on the basis of programme (pattern). A thing/system dies when it fails (due to this or that cause) to reproduce itself. So, it would be quite reasonable to assume that eternal existence of the Universe is none other than perpetual resurrection (oscillation): it begins with the simplest form (singularity) where only basic principles of existence were present, after that it evolves, and finally returns to the initial state. This cycle is infinite.
The main objectives of knowledge process are determined both by the nature of objective reality and of human mind. Every level of organization of matter has its own matrix which provides reproduction of its basic elements and properties, but contains no information on other levels. Human brain is able to reflect all existing laws (ideas) and deduce the most universal principles of organization, so the process of cognition plays dual role: it provides means for improving the life of Homo sapiens (that is the only creature able to reduce entropy of the World) and accumulates information necessary to extract the grains of absolute knowledge - the basic proportions of material world and the order of its assembly, for it could restore its integrity and then be scattered into myriads of fractions and start assembling and reassembling them to weave from the remnants of a supernovae a thinking creature whose striving for immortality is the pledge for immortality of Being.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}