A person gets to know the world, society and himself with one goal - to know the truth. What is truth, how to determine that this or that knowledge is true, what are the criteria of truth? This is what this article is about.

What is truth

There are several definitions of truth. Here are some of them.

• Truth is knowledge that corresponds to the subject of knowledge.
• Truth is a truthful, objective reflection of reality in human consciousness.

Absolute and relative truth

Absolute truth - This is a person’s complete, exhaustive knowledge of something. This knowledge will not be refuted or supplemented with the development of science.

Examples: a person is mortal, two and two are four.

Relative truth - this is knowledge that will be replenished with the development of science, since it is still incomplete and does not fully reveal the essence of phenomena, objects, etc. This happens due to the fact that at this stage of human development, science cannot yet reach the ultimate essence of the subject being studied.

Example: first people discovered that substances consist of molecules, then of atoms, then of electrons, etc. As we see, at every stage of the development of science, the idea of ​​an atom was true, but incomplete, that is, relative.

Difference between absolute and relative truth is how fully a particular phenomenon or object has been studied.

Remember: absolute truth was always first relative. Relative truth can become absolute with the development of science.

Are there two truths?

No, there are no two truths . There may be several points of view on the subject being studied, but the truth is always the same.

What is the opposite of truth?

The opposite of truth is error.

Misconception - this is knowledge that does not correspond to the subject of knowledge, but is accepted as truth. A scientist believes that his knowledge about a subject is true, although he is mistaken.

Remember: lie- Not is the opposite of truth.

Lie is a category of morality. It is characterized by the fact that the truth is hidden for some purpose, although it is known. Z delusion same - this is not a lie, but a sincere belief that knowledge is true (for example, communism is a delusion, such a society cannot exist in the life of mankind, but entire generations of Soviet people sincerely believed in it).

Objective and subjective truth

Objective truth - this is the content of human knowledge that exists in reality and does not depend on a person, on his level of knowledge. This is the whole world that exists around.

For example, much in the world, in the Universe, exists in reality, although humanity has not yet known it, perhaps it will never know it, but it all exists, an objective truth.

Subjective truth - this is the knowledge acquired by humanity as a result of its cognitive activity, this is everything in reality that has passed through the consciousness of man and is understood by him.

Remember: Objective truth is not always subjective, and subjective truth is always objective.

Criteria of truth

Criteria– this is a word of foreign origin, translated from Greek kriterion - a measure for evaluation. Thus, the criteria of truth are the grounds that will allow one to be convinced of the truth, accuracy of knowledge, in accordance with its subject of knowledge.

Criteria of truth

• Sensual experience - the simplest and most reliable criterion of truth. How to determine if an apple is tasty - try it; how to understand that music is beautiful - listen to it; How to make sure that the color of the leaves is green - look at them.
• Theoretical information about the subject of knowledge, that is, theory . Many objects are not amenable to sensory perception. We will never be able to see, for example, the Big Bang, as a result of which the Universe was formed. In this case, theoretical study and logical conclusions will help to recognize the truth.

Theoretical criteria of truth:

1. Compliance with logical laws
2. Correspondence of truth to those laws that were discovered by people earlier
3. Simplicity of formulation, economy of expression

• Practice. This criterion is also very effective, since the truth of knowledge is proven by practical means .(There will be a separate article about practice, follow the publications)

Thus, the main goal of any knowledge is to establish the truth. This is exactly what scientists do, this is what each of us is trying to achieve in life: know the truth , no matter what she touches.

Truth is the reflection of an object by a cognizing subject, its reproduction as it supposedly exists on its own, as if outside and independently of the cognizing subject and his consciousness. Truth can be called knowledge itself (the content of knowledge) or known reality itself. In general, truth is a universal abstract category, a concept used, in particular, both in religion and philosophy, and within the framework of scientific knowledge.

You can make many examples to make it easier to understand in practice what truth is. I will give an easy and often used example: a child sits at the table and eats breakfast. He wanted to take the candy, and he reached for the vase and caught the cup standing on the edge of the table with his elbow. The cup fell and broke. Mom comes in, sees the broken cup and asks who broke it. The child replies that he did not break it. Mom claims that only he could have broken the cup. Two truths collide: the child is right, because he did not break the cup or even touch it; Mom is right, because no one except the child could break the cup. And the truth is that the cup was broken by accident, no one broke it on purpose.

I will conclude that we cannot always connect cause and effect, which is the result of the fact that people have different truths and misunderstandings occur.

Types of truths

Speaking about truth and giving it definitions, we must not forget that truth has been divided into several types. Knowing and understanding these differences will make it easier for us to comprehend the truth.

Absolute truth

Absolute truth is the source of everything, that from which everything came. Absolute truth is not truth as a process, it is static, unchanging (if it is dynamic, then it can become more or less absolute, therefore, it becomes a relative truth). It is the knowledge of absolute truth that is the good to which philosophy should strive, but more often we observe the departure of modern philosophy from ontological issues. The human mind will always be limited within certain limits, and it does not have the ability to fully reveal the absolute truth. In some religions (in particular, Christianity) this problem is overcome by the fact that the absolute truth itself is revealed to man, since the latter’s personality is recognized (the absolute truth is God). Philosophy could not offer another adequate solution to the question of absolute truth, because philosophical systems are limited for the above-mentioned reason of the limitations of the human mind that created them, and the categories they create, claiming to be called “absolute truth,” deny themselves (by the way, in dialectical development), which leads to nihilism. The latter in general terms boils down to the statement that “all truth is relative,” which is also characterized by self-negation, since it is absolute in nature.

There is a poem "What is truth?" It circulated in manuscripts among persecuted Christians in the USSR. Describes Pilate asking Jesus, “What is truth?” and without hearing the answer, he immediately turns around and goes to the crowd.

“For centuries the question has been heard:

Tell me, what is the truth?

I am the Truth, said Christ,

And this word is true!

Once the interrogation was going on in the Praetorium,

The people shouted furiously.

He hears My voice, said Christ,

The one who is himself from the Truth.

This answer seems simple,

Pilate sees sincerity in him,

And yet he asks the question:

What is truth?

So, looking the Truth in the eye,

We are chasing her vigorously,

Forgetting that Christ Himself said:

I am the Way and the Life and the Truth!”

Jesus made a revolution by pointing out that truth is not “what”, but “who”. Truth is alive. It never occurred to Pilate...

Here, I think, one of the conclusions can be drawn is that in the eyes and concepts of a person, the truth will always be different as long as we have different information and different knowledge, different values ​​and feelings.

Relative truth

Relative truth is a philosophical concept that reflects the assertion that absolute truth (or ultimate truth) is difficult to achieve. According to this theory, one can only approach the absolute truth, and as one approaches, new ideas are created and old ones are discarded. Theories that assert the existence of absolute truth are often called metaphysics, while theories of relative truth are called relativism. The concept of relative truth is used in the doctrine of dialectics. A type of relative truth is truth. Relative truth always reflects the current level of our knowledge about the nature of phenomena. For example, the statement “The Earth rotates” is an absolute truth, and the statement that the Earth rotates at such and such a speed is a relative truth, which depends on the methods and accuracy of measuring this speed.

Objective truth

Objective truth is the content of our knowledge that does not depend on the subject in content (it always depends in form, therefore truth is subjective in form). Recognition of the objectivity of truth and the knowability of the world are equivalent and have nothing in common with the relative concept of irrationalist philosophy.

Having considered the three types of truth, I understand that philosophy concentrates on absolute and relative truth. The following discussions will be about how these truths are interpreted in detail in philosophy and how they arose.

Knowledge about the subject of knowledge can be of varying depth and completeness.

The absoluteness of truth means:

· Complete, comprehensive knowledge about the subject of knowledge. Such truth can never be achieved, because... objects and phenomena are constantly changing and developing, and also because your cognitive abilities are limited.

· Reliable knowledge that does not require clarification or deepening.

The relative in truth is always incompleteness, inaccuracy of information about the subject of knowledge.

To characterize the process of gradual clarification and deepening of truth, saturation of its objective content, the concepts of absolute and relative truths are introduced. Absolute truth is understood as a value that absolutely coincides in content with the displayed object. However, the achievement of absolute truth in consciousness is more an ideal that scientists strive for than a real result. In science we often have to settle for relative truths.

Relative truth is understood as knowledge achieved in specific historical conditions of knowledge and characterized by relative correspondence to its object. In other words, relative truth is a partially true truth; it only approximately and incompletely corresponds to reality. In real knowledge, a scientist is always limited by certain conditions and resources: instrumentation, logical and mathematical apparatus, etc. Due to these limitations, he cannot immediately achieve absolute truth, and he is forced to be content with relative truth.

Outwardly, absolute and relative truths seem to exclude each other. But in the real process of cognition they do not oppose each other, but are interconnected. Their relationship expresses the procedural, dynamic nature of achieving truth in science.

One can say about relative truth that it represents more or less true knowledge. Some elements of this truth fully correspond to their object, others are the speculative conjecture of the author. Some aspects of an object may generally be hidden from the knowing subject for the time being. Due to its incomplete correspondence to the object, relative truth acts as an approximately correct reflection of reality.

Naturally, relative truth can be clarified and supplemented in the process of cognition, therefore it acts as knowledge subject to change. At the same time, absolute truth, due to its complete correspondence with reality, is unchangeable knowledge. There is nothing to change in absolute truth, since its elements correspond to their object.

In real knowledge, the path to absolute truth as the limit lies through a series of relative truths that clarify and enrich each other.

The question arises: is absolute truth achievable? This question usually causes heated debate, and it is not easy to answer it clearly. There is a fairly widespread opinion that absolute truth is not achievable in principle. This point of view strengthens the position of skepticism and agnosticism.

In connection with the issue under discussion, it is useful to distinguish between the concepts “unknowable” and “unknown.” It is absolutely clear that at any moment in the development of science there remain things not yet known by people. The meaning of the concept “unknowable” is completely different. If we are talking about an unknowable thing, then we return to Kant’s concept, which is refuted by the development of science. In the light of its development, it should apparently be recognized that there are no unknowable entities in nature, although there will always remain a fairly large number of unknown things, since progress in knowledge largely depends on the technical and intellectual equipment of the subject. We can say that the absolute truth about the world as a whole exists only as a limit and ideal to which humanity strives.

Thus, it should be noted: truth is relative in terms of the volume of accurate knowledge about the subject of knowledge and absolute in terms of the reliability of this knowledge, this information.

The question of ways to achieve truth is closely related to the question of its criteria. The criterion of truth is usually understood as some standard or method of verifying it. It is clear that the criterion of truth must satisfy

Simultaneously two conditions:

1) it must be independent of the knowledge being tested;

2) it must be somehow connected with knowledge in order to confirm or refute it.

As a criterion of truth, practice satisfies these conditions. It has the virtue of objectivity, independence from human consciousness. Practice connects a person with objective reality. In it, people change things. Whatever a person thinks about things, in the course of objective activity he can force them to change only according to his own nature.

At the same time, the implementation of practical activities depends on knowledge. Any practice is based on some information about the properties of the things being transformed, it proceeds from a certain goal, unfolds according to a certain plan, i.e. it is clear that the practice is thoughtful, deliberate. Therefore, the meaning of practice cannot be absolute. At any given moment, practice is limited in its capabilities. A person cannot always carry out certain processes in practice due to the underdevelopment of technical means and the inability to control any natural phenomena. Hence, there are always scientific theories that cannot be tested by practice at the moment.

The well-known uncertainty of practice as a criterion of truth is not a tragedy for scientific knowledge. Moreover, the problematic nature and inconclusiveness of confirming the truth of any knowledge is even a benefit for scientific progress. The problematic situation creates the preconditions for criticism and development of theories. In science there is always room for revising established knowledge and moving forward. This pulls the rug out from under the feet of dogmatism and prevents the transformation of theoretical positions into unshakable canons.

Knowledge or information expressed in concepts and other forms of abstract-logical knowledge of a high degree of generality is always abstract. Sensory cognition is always concrete; it is not divorced from the subject of research.

The abstractness of truth is mainly expressed in theory. The concreteness of truth means the establishment of connections between an existing title and specific objects and processes of the objective world or with their state. Truth is always concrete in its connections with real objects and processes of the objective world and abstract in the degree of generalization of this knowledge. Practice is not an absolute criterion of truth. Experiment as a form of practice is also not an absolute criterion of truth in knowledge.

Misconception is an unintentional distortion of the results of knowledge or research. This is the content of knowledge that does not correspond to reality, but is accepted as truth. Misconceptions are objectively inherent in any process of cognition and are caused by the following reasons:

The complexity of the problems being solved;

The complexity of the subject of knowledge, the difficulty of studying or researching it;

The complexity of expressing knowledge in symbolic forms (any symbolic forms - from words to mathematical formulas);

Limited information;

Freedom to choose paths of knowledge;

Lack of development of scientific instruments;

The desire to pass off wishful thinking as reality.

Misconceptions and errors are gradually being overcome in natural science, but this problem remains particularly acute in social knowledge, since:

Repetition of events is impossible (irreversibility of history);

Access to sources of empirical knowledge is difficult;

The interests of social communities are contradictory;

Modeling, formalization, idealization in theoretical knowledge, etc. are difficult.

Knowledge as a lie is a deliberate distortion (or concealment) of information about the subject of knowledge for certain purposes (in particular, selfish or some other). A lie is a distortion of the actual state of affairs, with the purpose of deceiving someone. Lies are the antipode of truth. Lying is usually understood as the deliberate raising of obviously incorrect ideas into the truth.

We can highlight:

· lie as an invention about something that did not happen;

· lie as a deliberate concealment of what happened;

· lying as logically incorrect thinking.

ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE TRUTH are categories of dialectical materialism that characterize the process of development of knowledge and reveal the relationship between: 1) what has already been known and what will be known in the further process of development of science; 2) the fact that the composition of our knowledge can be changed, clarified, refuted in the course of further development of science, and that which will remain irrefutable. The doctrine of Absolute and relative truth provides an answer to the question: “...can human ideas expressing objective truth express it immediately, entirely, unconditionally, absolutely, or only approximately, relatively?” (Lenin V.I.T. 18. P. 123). In this regard, absolute truth is understood as complete, exhaustive knowledge about reality (1) and as that element of knowledge that cannot be refuted in the future (2). Our knowledge at each stage of development is determined by the achieved level of science, technology, and production. With the further development of knowledge and practice, human ideas about nature deepen, clarify, and improve. Therefore, scientific truths are relative in the sense that they do not provide complete, exhaustive knowledge about the field of subjects being studied and contain elements that will change, become more precise, deepen, and be replaced by new ones in the process of development of knowledge. At the same time, each relative truth means a step forward in the knowledge of absolute truth, and contains, if it is scientific, elements, grains of absolute truth. There is no uncrossable line between absolute and relative truth. The sum of relative truths creates the absolute truth. The history of science and social practice confirms this dialectical nature of the development of knowledge. In the process of development, science reveals deeper and more fully the properties of objects and the relationships between them, approaching the knowledge of absolute truth, which is confirmed by the successful application of theory in practice (in social life, in production, etc.). On the other hand, previously created theories are constantly refined and developed; some hypotheses are refuted (for example, the hypothesis about the existence of ether), others are confirmed and become proven truths (for example, the hypothesis about the existence of atoms); Some concepts are eliminated from science (for example, “caloric” and “phlogiston”), others are clarified and generalized (cf. the concepts of simultaneity and inertia in classical mechanics and in the theory of relativity). The doctrine of absolute and relative truth overcomes the one-sidedness of metaphysical concepts that declare every truth eternal, unchanging (“absolute”), and the concepts of relativism, which claim that every truth is only relative (relative), that the development of science indicates only a change in successive misconceptions and that therefore there is not and cannot be absolute truth. In reality, as Lenin put it, “every ideology is historical, but what is certain is that every scientific ideology (unlike, for example, a religious one) corresponds to an objective truth, an absolute nature” (Vol. 18, p. 138).

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

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

Absolute truth- this is complete, exhaustive knowledge of reality that cannot be refuted.

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

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

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

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

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

Lies and deception

Lies and deception act as the opposite of truth and indicate a discrepancy between judgment and reality. The difference between them lies in the fact of intentionality. So, delusion there is an unintentional discrepancy between judgments and reality, and lie - deliberately elevating misconceptions into truth.

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

No. 39 The relationship between faith and reason.

FAITH AND REASON

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another tradition, characteristic of the scholastic stage, recognized certain rights for reason. The thesis of Anselm of Canterbury in comparison with the principle of Tertullian is already more constructive: “I believe and understand.” Thomas Aquinas (13th century) goes further and tries to reconcile faith and reason. On the one hand, this reconciliation again does not look in favor of reason and philosophy. The priority of faith remains. And philosophy, as with Damiani, is reduced to the position of the “handmaiden” of theology. On the other hand, Aquinas’s position contributes to a certain rehabilitation of reason, which scholastics no longer perceive as an enemy of faith. Reason, guided by the light of Revelation, allows a person to approach God. Thus, the truths of reason and the truths of faith do not contradict each other.

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

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

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

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

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

The logical works of Boethius gave impetus to scholastic thinking. But he understands logic in a unique way. He is not interested in laws, not in rules of thinking, but in purely theological questions. For example: “How is it that the Trinity is one God and not three Deities?” The Gnostics solved them by revealing their symbolic meaning. But Boethius does not know how to do this. He immerses himself in the analysis of verbal constructions that express dogmatic truths.

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

During the Renaissance, scholasticism experienced opposition from mystical Christianity, revived Neoplatonism, and emerging secular philosophy and science. The symbolism of the Bible will remain a mystery to the general public for several centuries. It will be opened only towards the end of the 19th century.

REASON AND FAITH

REASON AND FAITH are the fundamental relationship between the two abilities of the human soul, which has been the most important philosophical and theological problem throughout the history of thought. "

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

In the Middle Ages, with changes in ontological principles, the meaning and meaning of faith changed. The methods of human existence now presupposed confession, prayer, instructions (conditions of faith), which were the path to the acquisition of eternal and unchanging truth.

We can distinguish three periods during which the angles of view on the problem of the relationship between reason and faith shifted. The first is before the 10th century, when reason and faith were thought of as relying on authority. The second - 10-12 centuries, when disciplinary diverging theology and philosophy raise the question of justifying an authoritative judgment by reason. "Sutius - 13-14 centuries, when we are talking about two truths: the truths of faith, which are accepted without proof and are justified by references to the Sacred Scripture, and the truths of reason that require proof.However, all three periods are characterized by common features of the Christian idea of ​​​​the creation of the world by the Trinity God - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, i.e. Omnipotence, Word-Logos and Goodness. on the revelation of Holy Scripture. The recognition of a higher power, which creates the world through reason and good will, gave rise to the demand for faith, which, due to the incomprehensibility of this act of creation, could not be considered exclusively in a cognitive context. Recognition of the limitations of the human mind in comparison with Divine Wisdom meant that the mind participates. in the knowledge of God together with other, no less important abilities; a person was considered concentrated only when his intellect was concentrated in the heart, that is, when the mind became diligent and the heart prophetic. Man henceforth appeared not in two dimensions - soul and body, as in Antiquity, but in three - body, soul and spirit, where the spirit carried out the communion of man with God through goodness, thereby giving faith an ontological status, philosophy directed to the principles of being, from now on could not ignore faith and certainly had to join in the search for correspondence between reason and faith. Already in the 2nd century. in contrast to Gnosticism, which preached the impossibility of the unity of reason and faith, representatives of the Alexandrian catechetical school and, above all, Clement of Alexandria, proclaimed their harmony, believing that the harmony of faith and knowledge can make a person a conscious Christian. Belief in the good and reasonable foundation of the world is the beginning of philosophy. A properly directed mind helps to strengthen faith.

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

Tertullian focused on faith, which lies at the basis of existence, because he considered the very name of Christ to be the object of faith, which, in his opinion, comes from “anointing” or “pleasantness” and “kindness.” The meaning of this name refers, therefore, to the foundation of being (which is Kindness) as an unshakable principle; and to the originality of being, the path to which is cleared by communion and anointing. Attention to the idea of ​​a name is connected with the idea of ​​creation according to the Word, which at the same time is both a deed and a witness to the deed through the name. The name as the “last word”, having survived the vicissitudes of pronouncing, thinking, collapsing, becomes an object of faith. The name is evidence of a tradition that cannot be fiction, for fiction is peculiar to one person; it is a truth accessible to all and existing for all. Tradition as a universal is the principle of trust, which is always ready to be tested, which is actually faith. That which is not ready for testing is a superstition unworthy of a Christian.

The guardian of continuity is the soul, “simple, uneducated, rude.” This soul is not a Christian, since Christians are not born, but it has reasons to become a Christian, arising 1) from the unreflected use of words of ordinary language (“God is good”, “God gave, God has taken”, “God will give”, “God will judge”) ”, etc.), into which a person is immersed from birth, which makes him actually a man, that is, an inexperienced speaker of the name of God; 2) from the coordination of this simplicity with sacred institutions. The soul is sacralized by virtue of its nature, close to God as the first essence. Primacy allows us to judge the authority of the soul. Since its knowledge is received from God, the soul is a prophetess, an interpreter of signs, a seer of events. It is the first stage of God-given knowledge. On this basis, Tertullian builds a unique ontology of knowledge: “the soul is older than the letter, the word is older than the book, and feeling is older than style, and man himself is older than the philosopher and poet.” The soul “speaks” in any composition; since she speaks in it, who is by nature close to God, then “it is necessary to trust your own writings” (Tertullian. Selected works. M., 1994, p. 88), especially the Divine writings, for chronologically they are older than any other writing . With such a hierarchy of knowledge (God - nature - soul, which intuitively, which is faith, contains wisdom in a compressed form), the priority of Jerusalem over Athens is natural, that is, the priority of “simplicity of heart” over stoic, platonic and dialectical reasoning.

The philosophical task of Tertullian, who lived in an era when Christianity had not yet been consolidated, was the discovery of a faith based on the idea of ​​creation. A different task faced Augustine, who lived in the period of established Christian dogmas: the emphasis was on the mutual basis of reason and faith, in particular in the prayerful beginning of his Confessions: “Let me, Lord, know and comprehend whether to begin by calling to You, or in order to praise You; whether it is necessary to first know You or call upon You. But who will call to You without knowing You?.. Or in order to know You, one must “call to You”? An ignorant person can call not to You, but to someone else. I will seek You, Lord, calling on You, and I will call on You, believing in You, for this has been preached to us” (Confession. M., 1989, p. 53). We are talking here about a consistent understanding of God through reason and faith: “I believe in order to understand, and I understand in order to believe.” Understanding is the reward of faith - Augustine’s main thought: “A person must be reasonable in order to want to seek God” (“On the Trinity”). Faith for him is indistinguishable from authority. Authority and reason are two principles that attract a person to knowledge under the condition of personal transformation.

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

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

In the 12th century There already exist such diversely oriented philosophical schools as the Shargr, Saint-Vikgor, Lan, and Paris schools. The first explored the problems of mechanical-mathematical cosmology, the laws of which applied to the world of living nature, considered as the Book of Nature (Theodoric and Bernard of Chartres, Gilbert of Porretan). The Saint-Vicgor school was an example of speculative philosophy. lyro Saint-Victorian in “Didaskalikon” compiled a pyramid of sciences with hierarchical division, subordination, distinguishing them from the “seven liberal arts”. The Lanskaya school developed issues of ethics, which were originally part of theology. Abelard's secular school explored, in line with meditative dialectics, the problems of speech utterance, ethics and theology as a rational discipline.

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

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

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

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

John Dutus Scotus rejects Thomist attitudes towards the reconciliation of faith and reason, believing that philosophy and theology have different objects and methodology. Unlike philosophy, which presents methods of proof and demonstration, theology offers a path of persuasion, the former based on the logic of the natural, the latter on the logic of the supernatural and revelation. If the Averroists promote the replacement of theology with philosophy, then the Thomists and Augustinians promote the opposite. To avoid such substitution, Duns Scotus proposes to criticize theological and philosophical concepts in order to develop a new philosophical discourse. The principle of equatoriality must be replaced by the principle of uniqueness of being. This principle assumed “merely simple concepts”, not identified with others and unambiguous. The concept of existence was applied to God, which was neutral regarding the created and the uncreated. Consequently, it met the requirements of simplicity and unambiguity. Duns Scotus called this concept imperfect. It is the first object of the intellect and helps to understand, through the study of modes of being, that the cause of things is beyond the world of things, and this is proof of the existence of God.

William Oxnam believed that the mediation of reason and faith by philosophical or theological concepts is futile, since the levels of rationality, based on the logical eye

visibility, and faith, based on morality and not a consequence of obvious conclusions, are asymmetrical. Therefore, the spheres of reason and faith do not intersect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the concept of dialogue of cultures by V. S. Bibler, a single definition of reason for all eras is generally questioned. “At one point, the ancient, medieval, and modern European spiritual spectra concentrate and mutually determine each other, revealing simultaneous (actually cultural) existence” (Bibler V.S. From scientific teaching to the logic of culture. Two philosophical introductions to the 21st century. M., 1991, p. .263). Turning to the original principles of philosophy is a condition for human self-determination. The believing mind, participating in a single universal subject, turns out to be one of the forms of this self-determination.

No. 40 Social philosophy.