Thinking, mind and reason. Consciousness and self-awareness

According to the method of mental activity, the thinking consciousness of a person can be divided into two main types - reason and reason. The first of the thinkers who grasped the diversity of the nature of thinking was Heraclitus, who showed that by thinking in one way, less perfectly, limitedly, rationally, a person does not rise to the universal. Reason consists in the ability to perceive nature holistically, in its movement and interconnection.

In philosophical and psychological literature up to recent years the concepts of “reason” and “reason” were not specifically analyzed; they were used not categorically, but as concepts, perhaps, synonymous with thinking and intellect. And only in lately the concepts of “reason” and “mind” began to be intensively studied. Many works have appeared on this topic, which argue that reason is the lowest level of logical understanding . It's more of an everyday thing , calculating thinking , specific and practical-oriented. Most of the performances

concepts everyday life consists of what is called reason, or common sense.

Reason is the highest level of logical understanding, a theoretical, reflective, philosophically thinking consciousness, operating with broad generalizations and focused on the most complete and deep knowledge truth. Thinking at the level of the mind, according to E.P. Nikitin, is freed from frozen rational forms and becomes consciously free. At the level of reason, the subjective reaches maximum unity with the objective in the sense of completeness and comprehensiveness of understanding, as well as in the sense of the unity of theoretical and practical thinking. At this level, knowledge is of the most in-depth and generalized nature. Rational consciousness is a deeply dialectical process.

The effectiveness of thinking depends on past experience, realistic assessment and mental abilities of a person, which in turn presupposes the ability to optimally organize thinking, feelings and behavior. The more perfect this organization is, the more perfect the mind.

Consciousness, language, communication

Language is as ancient as consciousness: “Only man, of all living beings, is gifted with speech.” Animals have no consciousness human sense words. They do not have a language equal to human. The little that animals want to communicate to each other does not require speech. The essence of language is revealed in its dual function - to serve as a means of communication and an instrument of thinking. Speech is an activity, the very process of communication, exchange of thoughts, feelings, wishes, goal-setting, etc., which is carried out using language, i.e. a certain system of means of communication. Language is a system of meaningful, meaningful forms - every word glows with rays of meaning. Through the language of thought, the emotions of individual people are transformed from their personal property into public property, into the spiritual wealth of the entire society. Thanks to language, a person perceives the world not only with his senses and thinks not only with his brain, but with the senses and brains of all people whose experience he has perceived through language. Keeping the spiritual values ​​of society, being a material form of condensation and storage of ideal moments human consciousness, language plays the role of a mechanism of social heredity.

The exchange of thoughts and experiences using language consists of two closely interconnected processes - the expression of thoughts (and all the wealth spiritual world person) speaking or writing and perception, understanding of these thoughts, feelings by listening or reading. (It is also necessary to keep in mind the individual characteristics of those communicating using words - those who read the same thing read different things.)

A person can express his thoughts in a wide variety of ways. The thoughts and feelings of, for example, a musician are expressed in musical sounds, an artist - in drawings and paints, a sculptor - in forms, a designer - in drawings, a mathematician - in formulas, geometric figures, etc. Thoughts and feelings are expressed in a person’s actions, in what and how he does. No matter what other means thoughts are expressed, they are ultimately translated in one way or another into verbal language - a universal means among the sign systems used by man, which plays the role of a universal interpreter. This special position of language among all communication systems is caused by its connection with thinking, which produces the content of all messages transmitted through any sign system.

The closeness of thinking and language, their close relationship leads to the fact that thought receives its adequate (or closest to such) expression in language. A thought that is clear in content and harmonious in form is expressed in intelligible and consistent speech. “He who thinks clearly speaks clearly,” says folk wisdom. According to Voltaire, a beautiful thought loses its value if it is poorly expressed, and if it is repeated, it becomes boring. It is with the help of language and writing that people’s thoughts are transmitted over vast distances, but across the globe, passed from one generation to another

What does it mean to perceive and understand the expressed thought? In itself it is immaterial. A thought cannot be perceived by the senses - it cannot be seen, heard, touched, or tasted. The expression “people exchange thoughts through speech” should not be taken literally. The listener feels and perceives words in their connection, and is aware of what is expressed by them - thoughts. And this awareness depends on the level of culture of the listener, the reader. "...The same moralizing saying in the mouth of a young man, who understands it completely correctly, does not have [for him] the significance and breadth that it has for the spirit of a mature husband, wise by worldly experience; for the latter, this experience reveals all the power contained in such a saying of content." Mutual understanding occurs only if ideas and thoughts that the speaker expresses arise in the listener’s brain (due to the corresponding image - meaning assigned to a certain word during language learning). In science, this principle of communication is called the principle of hinting, according to which a thought is not conveyed in speech, but is only induced (as if excited) in the mind of the listener, leading to incomplete reproduction of information. Hence the theories in which the possibility of complete mutual understanding of communicating people is fundamentally rejected.

Consciousness and language form a unity - in their existence they presuppose each other, just as internal, logically formed ideal content presupposes its external material form. Language is the direct activity of thought, consciousness. He participates in the process of mental activity as its sensory basis or instrument. Consciousness is not only revealed, but also formed with the help of language. Our thoughts are constructed in accordance with our language and must correspond to it. The opposite is also true - we organize speech in accordance with the logic of our thoughts. “The image of the world, revealed in the word,” these words of B. Pasternak succinctly characterize the essence of the unity of thought and word. When we are imbued with an idea, when the mind, says Voltaire, has mastered its thought well, it comes out of the head fully armed with suitable expressions, dressed in suitable words, like Minerva emerging from the head of Jupiter in armor. The connection between consciousness and language is not mechanical, but organic. They cannot be separated from each other without destroying both.

Through language there is a transition from perceptions and ideas to concepts, and the process of operating with concepts occurs. In speech, a person records his thoughts and feelings and thanks to this he has the opportunity not only to subject them to analysis as an ideal object lying outside him, but most importantly, to convey them. By expressing his thoughts and feelings, a person understands them more clearly himself - he understands himself only by experiencing the clarity of his words on others. It is not without reason that they say that if a thought has arisen, it is necessary to express it, then it will become clearer, and the stupidity contained in it will be more obvious. Language and consciousness are one. In this unity, the defining side is consciousness, thinking - being a reflection of reality, it “sculpts” forms and dictates the laws of its linguistic existence. Through consciousness and practice, the structure of language ultimately reflects, albeit in a modified form, the structure of being. But unity is not identity: consciousness reflects reality, and language stands for everything is expressed in thought. Speech is not thinking, otherwise, as L. Feuerbach noted, the greatest talkers would have to be the greatest thinkers.

Language and consciousness form a contradictory unity. Language influences consciousness - its historically established norms, specific to each nation, highlight different characteristics in the same object. For example, the style of thinking in German philosophical culture different from, say, French, which to a certain extent depends on the characteristics of the national languages ​​of these peoples. However, the dependence of thinking on language is not absolute, as some linguists believe - thinking is determined mainly by its connections with reality, while language can only partially modify the form and style of thinking.

Language influences consciousness and thinking in the sense that it imparts a certain compulsion to thought, exercises a kind of “tyranny” over thought, directs its movement through the channels of linguistic forms, as if driving constantly iridescent, changeable, individually unique, into their general framework. emotionally charged thoughts. It is this commonality that can only be adequately conveyed to others.

Not everything can be expressed through language. Secrets human soul so deep that they are inexpressible in ordinary human language - poetry, music, and the entire arsenal of symbolic means are needed here.

A person receives information not only through ordinary language, but also through a variety of events. outside world. Smoke signals that a fire is burning. But the same smoke takes on character symbol, if people have agreed in advance what it will mean, for example, “dinner is ready.” A sign is an object, process, action , performing in communication the role of a representative of something else and used to acquire , storage , transformation and transmission of information . Sign systems arose and are developing as a material form in which consciousness, thinking are carried out, information processes are realized in society, and in our time in technology. The meaning of signs refers to the information about things, properties and relationships that is transmitted with their help. Meaning is a reflection of objective reality expressed in the material form of a sign. It includes both conceptual, sensory and emotional components, volitional impulses, requests - in a word, the entire sphere of the psyche and consciousness.

The original sign system is ordinary, natural language. Among non-linguistic signs, there are copy signs (photos, fingerprints, prints of fossil animals and plants, etc.), sign signs (chills - a symptom of illness, a cloud - a harbinger of approaching rain, etc.), signal signs ( factory whistle, bell, applause, etc.), signs-symbols (for example, a double-headed eagle symbolizes Russian statehood), signs of communication - the entire set of natural and artificial languages. Signs of artificial systems include, for example, various code systems (Morse code, codes used in compiling computer programs), formula signs, various diagrams, traffic alarm systems, etc. Any sign functions only in the corresponding system. The structure and functioning of sign systems is studied by semiotics.

The development of sign systems is determined by the needs of the development of science, technology, art and social practice. The use of special symbols, especially artificial systems and formulas, creates enormous advantages for science. For example, the use of signs from which formulas are made makes it possible to record connections of thoughts in an abbreviated form and to communicate on an international scale. Artificial sign systems, including intermediary languages ​​used in technology, are a complement to natural languages ​​and exist only on their basis.

Language and, in general, the entire rich sign-symbolic sphere does not have a self-sufficient meaning. All the powers of the soul, all the possibilities of verbal communication (and thinking is possible only on the basis of language) are aimed at communicating with the world and with one’s own kind in the life of society. And this is possible only under the condition of adequate comprehension of existence.

So, we have examined the problem of consciousness in its various aspects. At the same time, we note that the word “consciousness” contains the root "zn" words zn-a-t, zn-a-nie. It turns out that consciousness and knowledge are related words and concepts. Therefore, consideration of the problem of consciousness in all its variations quite logically requires a transition to the consideration of the theory of knowledge, which continues and deepens the understanding of the essence of consciousness itself at a different level of manifestation of its cognitive, effective and creative essence.

• W. Shakespeare aptly and figuratively said about language and writing: Let war overthrow the statues.

  The rebellion will dispel the work of the masons,

  But the letters embedded in the memory

  The passing centuries will not be erased.

• Hegel G. B. F. The science of logic. M., 1970. T. 1. P. 112.

34. Specifics and basic forms rational knowledge. Two types of thinking - reason and reason. Concept of intuition

Consciousness is always a conscious being, an expression of a person’s relationship to his being. Knowledge – objective reality, given in the consciousness of a person who, in his activity, reflects and ideally reproduces the objective natural connections of the real world. Cognition is the process of acquiring and developing knowledge, conditioned primarily by socio-historical practice, its constant deepening, expansion and improvement.

Rational cognition is a cognitive process that is carried out through forms of mental activity. Forms of rational knowledge have several common characteristics: firstly, the inherent focus of all of them on reflecting the general properties of cognizable objects (processes, phenomena); secondly, the associated abstraction from their individual properties; thirdly, an indirect relationship to cognizable reality (through forms sensory knowledge and the cognitive means of observation, experimentation, information processing used); fourthly, a direct connection with language (the material shell of thought).

The main forms of rational knowledge traditionally include three logical forms of thinking: concept, judgment and inference. The concept reflects the subject of thought in its general and essential features. Judgment is a form of thought in which, through the connection of concepts, something is affirmed or denied about the subject of thought. Through inference, a judgment is necessarily derived from one or more judgments, containing new knowledge.

The identified logical forms of thinking are basic, since they express the content of many other forms of rational knowledge. These include search forms of knowledge (question, problem, idea, hypothesis), forms of systemic expression of subject knowledge (scientific fact, law, principle, theory, scientific picture of the world), as well as forms of normative knowledge (method, method, technique, algorithm, program, ideals and norms of knowledge, style of scientific thinking, cognitive tradition).

The relationship between the sensory and rational forms cognition is not limited to the above-mentioned mediating function of the former in relation to perceived objects and to forms of rational cognition. This relationship is more complex and dynamic: sensory data is constantly “processed” by the mental content of concepts, laws, principles, and the general picture of the world, and rational knowledge is structured under the influence of information coming from the senses (the importance of creative imagination is especially great). The most striking manifestation of the dynamic unity of the sensual and rational in knowledge is intuition.

The process of rational cognition is regulated by the laws of logic (primarily the laws of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle and sufficient reason), as well as the rules for deriving consequences from premises in inferences. It can be presented as a process of discursive (conceptual-logical) reasoning - the movement of thinking according to the laws and rules of logic from one concept to another in judgments, combining judgments into conclusions, comparing concepts, judgments and conclusions within the framework of the proof procedure, etc. The process rational cognition is accomplished consciously and controlled, that is, the knowing subject is aware and justifies every step on the path to the final result by the laws and rules of logic. Therefore, it is sometimes called the process of logical cognition, or cognition in logical form.

At the same time, rational knowledge is not limited to such processes. Along with them, it includes the phenomena of sudden, quite complete and clear comprehension of the desired result (solution to the problem) while the paths leading to this result are unconscious and uncontrollable. Such phenomena are called intuition. It cannot be “turned on” or “turned off” by a conscious volitional effort. This is an unexpected “illumination” (“insight” - an internal flash), a sudden comprehension of the truth.

REASON AND REASON - philosophy. categories that have developed within the framework of classical German. philosophy and intended to distinguish between two supposedly fundamentally different stages of rational knowledge.

Contrasting Raz., as a higher “ability of the soul”, Ras. was originally associated with the idea of ​​​​differentiating the earthly and heavenly worlds, radically different in nature. Ras. capable of cognizing only earthly things, i.e. relative and finite; Once. but the essence of which is goal-setting, must reveal the essence of the heavenly, i.e. absolute, infinite, divine. In particular, Albertus Magnus said that philosophy is based on the lower, rational faculty of the mind, while theology is based on its highest, hidden part, illuminated by the light of the Divine. In the future, to this basis for the differentiation of Races. and Time. one more thing was added, connected with dialectics and its basic position about the unity and struggle of opposites as the source of all development: Race. not dialectical, he separates opposites and considers them separately; Once. he is capable of grasping opposites in their unity. Nikolai Kuzansky, in particular, wrote that “a great thing is to firmly establish yourself in the unity of opposites.” The requirement to think contradictorily, clearly incompatible with the law of logical contradiction known to Aristotle, later became the “core” of G.V.F.’s dialectics. Hegel and the dialectics of Marxism-Leninism. It was even argued that Ras, guided by (formal) logic, is only suitable for everyday communication (F. Engels spoke of “kitchen usage”); for deep solutions, especially philosophical ones. and scientific problems, a Raz. who is proficient in dialectics is needed. For example, S.L. Frank wisely kept logical law contradictions for “habitual (abstract) knowledge,” however, turning to a higher philosophy. knowledge, considered it necessary to resort to contradictory thinking: “Whatever logically perceptible opposites we are talking about - unity and plurality, spirit and body, life and death, eternity and time, good and evil, creator and creation - ultimately we Everywhere we stand before the relationship that the logically separate, based on mutual negation, is at the same time internally fused, permeating each other - that one is not the other and at the same time is this other, and only with it, in it and through it is what it truly is in its final depth and completeness.”

Hegel opposed Raz. as the “infinite” thinking of Ras. as “final” thinking and believed that at the stage of Raz. thinking becomes free, not bound by k.-l. external restrictions on the spontaneous activity of the spirit. Marxism-Leninism accused Hegel of mystifying the activity of Raz., of presenting it as the self-development of concepts, but the very opposition of Raz. and Ras. considered it necessary to preserve.

Distinction between Races. and Time. some clarity can be given only if it is assumed that there are two fundamentally different worlds: imperfect and perfect (earthly and heavenly worlds; the current imperfect society and the future perfect communist society, etc.). For the knowledge of the first of them, taken in isolation, Ras is sufficient; for the knowledge of the second world and its connections with the first, the highest level of knowledge is necessary - Raz., and dialectical R.

The refusal to contrast the heavenly world with the earthly world and the subsequent collapse of the communist utopia and the dialectics necessary to substantiate it ultimately led to the contrast between Races. and Time. lost even faint hints of clarity.

INTUITION

(from Late Lat. intuitio, from Lat. intueor - close, attentive looking, contemplation) - the ability to directly discern the truth, comprehend it without any reasoning or proof. For I., surprise, improbability, immediate evidence and unawareness of the path leading to its result are usually considered typical. With “direct grasping,” sudden illumination and insight, there is a lot that is unclear and controversial. Sometimes it is even said that intelligence is a heap of rubbish into which all intellectual mechanisms are dumped, about which it is not known how to analyze them (M. Bunge). I. undoubtedly exists and plays a significant role in cognition. The process of scientific and, especially, artistic creativity and comprehension of the world is not always carried out in an expanded form, divided into stages. Often a person embraces a complex situation in his thoughts, without giving an account of all its details, and simply not paying attention to them. This is especially evident in military battles, when making a diagnosis, when establishing guilt and innocence, etc.

From the diverse interpretations of I., the following can be outlined:

I. Plato as contemplation of the ideas behind things, coming suddenly, but presupposing long-term preparation of the mind;

intellectual I. R. Descartes as the concept of a clear and attentive mind, so simple and distinct that it leaves no doubt that we think;

I. B. Spinoza, which is the “third kind” of knowledge (along with feelings and reason) and grasps the essence of things;

sensual I. I. Kant and his more fundamental pure I. of space and time, which lies at the basis of mathematics;

the artistic work of I. A. Schopenhauer, which captures the essence of the world as world will;

I. philosophy of life (F. Nietzsche), incompatible with reason, logic and life practice, but comprehending the world as a form of manifestation of life;

I. A. Bergson as a direct merging of the subject with the object and overcoming the opposition between them;

moral I. J. Moore as a direct vision of goodness, which is not a “natural” property of things and does not allow for rational determination;

pure I. time L.E.Ya. Brouwer, which underlies the activity of mental construction of mathematical objects;

I. Z. Freud as a hidden, unconscious primary source of creativity;

I. M. Polanyi as a spontaneous process of integration, a direct, sudden perception of integrity and interconnection in a previously disparate set of objects.

This list can be continued: almost every major philosopher and psychologist has his own understanding of I. In most cases, these understandings are not mutually exclusive.

I. as a “direct vision of the truth” is not something super-reasonable. It does not bypass feelings and thinking and does not constitute a special kind of knowledge. Its originality lies in the fact that individual links of the thinking process rush through more or less unconsciously and only the result of the thought is imprinted - the suddenly revealed truth.

There is a long tradition of contrasting logic with logic. I. is often placed above logic even in mathematics, where the role of rigorous proofs is especially great. To improve the method in mathematics, Schopenhauer believed, it is necessary first of all to abandon prejudice - the belief that proven truth is superior to intuitive knowledge. B. Pascal distinguished between the “spirit of geometry” and the “spirit of insight.” The first expresses the strength and directness of the mind, manifested in the iron logic of reasoning, the second - the breadth of the mind, the ability to see deeper and perceive the truth as if in insight. For Pascal, even in science, the “spirit of insight” is independent of logic and stands immeasurably higher than it. Even earlier, some mathematicians argued that intuitive conviction surpasses logic, just as the dazzling brilliance of the Sun outshines the pale radiance of the Moon.

The immoderate exaltation of I. to the detriment of strict evidence is unjustified. Logic and logic do not exclude or replace each other. In the real process of cognition, they are, as a rule, closely intertwined, supporting and complementing each other. Proof authorizes and legitimizes I.’s achievements; it minimizes the risk of contradiction and subjectivity, which intuitive insight is always fraught with. Logic, as the mathematician G. Weyl put it, is a kind of hygiene that allows you to keep ideas healthy and strong. I. throws away all caution, logic teaches restraint.

Clarifying and consolidating the results of logic, logic itself turns to it in search of support and help. Logical principles are not something given once and for all. They are formed in the centuries-old practice of cognition and transformation of the world and represent the purification and systematization of spontaneously developing “mental habits.” Growing out of amorphous and changeable pre-logical logic, from a direct, albeit unclear “vision of the logical,” these principles always remain associated with the original intuitive “sense of the logical.” It is no coincidence that a rigorous proof means nothing even to a mathematician if the result remains incomprehensible to him intuitively.

Logic and logic should not be opposed to each other; each of them is necessary in its place. A sudden intuitive insight can reveal truths that are hardly accessible to consistent and strict logical reasoning. However, a reference to I. cannot serve as a solid, much less final, basis for accepting any statements. I. leads to interesting new ideas, but it often also gives rise to errors and is misleading. Intuitive guesses are subjective and unstable; they need logical justification. To convince both others and oneself of an intuitively grasped truth, detailed reasoning and proof are required (see CONTEXTUAL ARGUMENTATION).

Rational knowledge is most fully and adequately expressed in thinking. Thinking is an active process of generalized and indirect reflection of reality that carries out during practice, ensuring

concealment of its natural connections on the basis of sensory data and their expression in a system of abstractions (concepts, categories, etc.).

Human thinking is carried out in close connection with speech, and its results are recorded in language as a certain sign system, which can be natural or artificial (languages ​​of mathematics, formal logic, chemical formulas, etc.).

Human thinking is not a purely natural property, but a function of a social collective subject, society, developed in the course of history in the process of its objective activity and communication, their ideal form. Therefore, thinking, its forms, principles, categories, laws and their sequence are internally connected with the history of social life and are determined by the development of labor and practice. It is the level and structure of the latter that ultimately determine the way of thinking of a particular era, the originality of logical “figures” and connections at each of its stages. Along with the development of practice, its complication and internal differentiation, thinking also changes, passing through certain levels (stages, states, etc.).

Based on the ancient philosophical tradition dating back to antiquity, two main levels of thinking should be distinguished - reason and reason. Reason is the initial level of thinking, at which the operation of abstractions occurs within the limits of an unchanging scheme, a given template, a rigid standard. This is the ability to reason consistently and clearly, formulate thoughts correctly, clearly classify, and strictly systematize facts. Here they deliberately distract from the development, interconnection of things and the concepts that express them, considering them as something stable and unchanging. The main function of the mind is division and calculation. Thinking as a whole is impossible without reason; it is always necessary, but its absolutization inevitably leads to metaphysics. Reason is ordinary everyday “everyday” thinking or what is often called common sense. Logic of reason is a formal logic that studies the structure of statements and evidence, paying primary attention to the form of “ready-made” knowledge, and not to its content and changes.

Intelligence ( dialectical thinking) - the highest level of rational knowledge, which is primarily characterized by creative handling of abstractions and conscious exploration of their own nature (self-reflection). Only at this level can thinking comprehend the essence of things, their laws and contradictions, and adequately express the logic of things in the logic of concepts. The latter, like the things themselves, are taken in their interrelation, development, comprehensively and specifically. The main task of the mind is to unite the diverse up to the synthesis of opposites and identify the root causes and driving forces of the phenomena being studied. The logic of reason is dialectics, presented as a doctrine of the formation and development of knowledge in the unity of its content and form.

The process of development of thinking includes the interconnection and mutual transition of reason and reason. The most characteristic form of the transition of the first to the second is going beyond the boundaries of the existing “ready-made” system of knowledge, based on the promotion of new – dialectical in its essence – fundamental ideas. The transition of reason into reason is associated primarily with the procedure of formalization and translation into a relatively stable state of those systems of knowledge that were obtained on the basis of reason (dialectical thinking).

Forms of thinking (logical forms) are ways of reflecting reality through interconnected abstractions, among which the initial ones are concepts, judgments and inferences. On their basis, more complex forms of rational knowledge are built, such as problem, hypothesis, theory, etc., which will be discussed below.

A concept is a form of thinking that reflects general natural connections, essential aspects, signs of phenomena that are enshrined in their definitions. For example, in the definition “man is an animal that makes tools”, such an essential feature of man is expressed, which distinguishes him from all other representatives of the animal world, acts as a fundamental

the legal law of the existence and development of man as a species being. Concepts must be flexible and mobile, interconnected, united in opposites, in order to correctly reflect the real dialectics (development) of the objective world. The most general concepts are philosophical categories. Concepts are expressed in linguistic form - in the form individual words(“atom”, “hydrogen”, etc.) or in the form of phrases denoting classes of objects (“economic relations”, “elementary particles”, etc.).

Judgment is a form of thinking that reflects things, phenomena, processes of reality, their properties, connections and relationships. This mental reflection, usually expressed by a declarative sentence, can be either true ("Paris is on the Seine") or false ("Rostov is the capital of Russia").

The form of a judgment reflects any properties and attributes of an object, and not just essential and general ones (as in a concept). For example, the judgment “gold is yellow” reflects not an essential, but a secondary attribute of gold.

Concepts and judgments act as “building blocks” for constructing conclusions, which represent moments of the movement of thinking from one judgment and concept to another, expressing the process of obtaining new results in knowledge. Inference is a form of thinking by which new knowledge (also usually in the form of a judgment) is derived from previously established knowledge (usually from one or more judgments). A classic example of inference:

1. All people are mortal (premise)

2. Socrates is a man (substantiating knowledge)

3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal (inferential knowledge, called conclusion or consequence).

There are two qualitatively excellent view thinking. The beginning of their distinction was laid by Plato. Having divided knowledge into sensory and intellectual, he identified two types of thinking: noesis and dianoia. Aristotle and subsequent ancient philosophers distinguished between nous and dianoia in thinking. In the Middle Ages and Modern times, these two types of thinking gradually acquired the names “ratio” and “intellect” (intellectus). In Russian philosophical literature, these two types of thinking began to be designated as reason and reason, rational thinking and reasonable thinking. However, this distinction was not overly strict. Very often the concepts of intellect (mind) and rationality (reason) were used as equivalent to each other and the concept of thinking in general.

Western European philosophers such as Severinus Boethius, John Scotus Eriugena, Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Jacobi, Friedrich Schelling distinguished between reason (intelligence) and reason (ratio), although not all of them used these terms and not always put the same content into them. I. Kant even spoke about the existence of another logic besides formal logic, which he called transcendental. But the meaning of the division of thinking into reasonable and rational was first more or less deeply revealed only by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

Thinking is a purposeful volitional activity of a person. But it represents not only the subjective activity of a person. Thinking is at the same time an objective process that develops according to objective laws. This was not noticed for a long time, because this objective process was clothed in the form of subjective activity. The discovery of thinking as an objective process occurred very late. And it was done by G. W. F. Hegel.

Along with facts, conscious or unconscious fictions presented as facts can and do exist. Fictional were, for example, the transformation of wheat into rye and vice versa (D. T. Lysenko and his followers), viruses into bacteria and back (G. M. Boshyan), the emergence of cells from structureless living matter (O. B. Lepeshinskaya), etc. . n. All this is often called fictitious or false facts.

This kind of fiction, which was presented as facts, can, of course, be called false facts or, in short, false facts, but one must always take into account that in reality they are not facts at all and certainly cannot be. A false fact is not a type of fact, but its direct opposite.

“In the minds of some bourgeois scientists,” adds V. S. Chernyak to what has been said, “there is a prejudice that a fact is something irrefutable by any further development of knowledge. A similar point of view has become widespread, in particular, in logical positivism. However, such an absolutization of a fact, its transformation into an absolutely true component scientific knowledge has nothing in common with the real process of development of scientific knowledge.”

Scientists specifically look for facts, then science has developed various kinds of methods and techniques for obtaining facts. The first of these is observation. Observation in science is not “gazing,” but a systematic activity aimed not at ensuring the success of certain specific human affairs, but at obtaining knowledge and only knowledge. We could talk endlessly about observation as a way of obtaining facts, because many works are devoted to this topic, but I think that what has been said is enough. Even more works have been written about this method of obtaining facts as an experiment.

When identifying the essence of the facts above, such a feature as objectivity was especially emphasized. Facts are undeniably objective. And at the same time they are subjective. And this subjectivity of facts does not consist at all in the fact that they exist in judgments as the content of the latter.
Figuratively speaking, facts taken by themselves, in isolation from each other, are fragments, fragments of the world. And not even the largest pile of these fragments, not even the largest set of facts, can provide holistic knowledge about reality. If we dismantle, say, a house, then it will not exist after that, even if we completely preserve every single material element (logs, boards, window frames, glass, etc.) from which it was built.
the only way to overcome the subjectivity of facts is to connect them together, and to connect them in the same way that equifacts are connected in reality itself. And this presupposes knowledge of the connections that exist in reality. Only by recognizing the real connections between equifacts can one build a world in one’s mind from a pile of fragments of the world as it exists outside consciousness, and recreate the real world in its entirety.
In contrast to holization, the process of essentialization, the creation of a theory, has long been noticed and more or less studied in detail. There is about him huge amount literature. But this does not mean that it does not need to be further explored. In philosophical literature, especially in the works of representatives of analytical philosophy, theory is most often misunderstood. It is interpreted as a statement (judgment, proposal), a sum or, in fact, best case scenario, a system of statements. In reality, theory never consists of judgments. It is a system of ideas and concepts that finds its expression in the text. It is necessary to clearly distinguish theory from theoretical text.
Semenov Yu I

“...The higher the level of consciousness of a person in terms of the rationality of his thoughts and the morality of his thoughts in behavior, the higher a person ascends on the ladder of spiritual maturation, the greater the depth of his own life world and, accordingly, world life opens up before him.”

Thinking– an active process of generalized and indirect reflection of reality carried out in the course of objective activity, ensuring the discovery of its natural connections on the basis of sensory data and their expression in a system of abstractions (concepts, categories, etc.). Human thinking is not a purely natural property, but a function of a social subject, society, developed in the course of history in the process of its objective activity and communication, their ideal form. Therefore, thinking, its forms, principles, categories and their sequence are internally connected with the history of social life. Thus, thinking is a product not so much of man’s biological evolution, but also, first of all, of his development as a social being. Human thinking is carried out in close connection with speech, its results are recorded in language. A person’s practice, repeated billions of times, is fixed in his consciousness in the form of corresponding forms of thinking, certain “figures of logic.” It is the level and structure of practice that ultimately determine the way of thinking of a particular era, the uniqueness of logical “figures” and connections in each.

Reason(static, formal thinking) – philosophical category, expressing the initial level of thinking at which the operation of abstractions occurs, as a rule, within the limits of an unchanged scheme, a given template, a rigid standard. This is the ability to reason consistently and clearly, construct your thoughts correctly, clearly classify, and strictly systematize facts. Here they deliberately distract from the development, interconnection of things and the concepts that express them, considering them as something stable and unchanging. Thinking as a whole is impossible without reason; it is always necessary, but its absolutization inevitably leads to metaphysics. Reason is ordinary, everyday, “everyday” thinking or what is often called common sense. The logic of reason is formal logic.

Intelligence(dialectical thinking) is a philosophical category that expresses the highest level of rational knowledge, which is primarily characterized by creative handling of abstractions and conscious exploration of their own nature (self-reflection). Only at this level can thinking comprehend the essence of things, their laws and contradictions, and adequately express the logic of things in the logic of concepts. The latter, like the things themselves, are taken in their interrelation, development, comprehensively and specifically. The main task of the mind is to unite the diverse up to the synthesis of opposites and to identify the root causes and driving forces of the phenomena being studied. The logic of reason is dialectics. The process of development of thinking includes the interconnection and mutual transition of both of its levels - reason and reason.