Help on Tele2, tariffs, questions

As many readers who have completed sessions know, while immersed in a trance, a person’s brain can interfere with the visualization process and draw pictures based on existing knowledge, which often distorts the information received. If a person thinks about an apple, it will appear. If he remembers his evening film, he will be dressed as a musketeer. It’s the same in everyday life - what we think about, we often get, although not immediately. If you are afraid of getting sick, you will get sick. Are you afraid of loneliness? You will be rejected, etc. From this example it follows that a person’s thought (intention, knowledge, experience, energy) has the ability to change the development of a scenario on the subtle (causal) plane, which then becomes materialized on the thick (material) plane. In other words, thought does shape our reality, although it takes much longer in the physical world than outside of it.

Scientists studied macaques on the Japanese island of Kojima in 1952 and noticed that some of the monkeys learned to wash sweet potatoes. This new behavior began to gradually spread through the younger generations of monkeys in a conventional manner, through observation and repetition. Further, Watson states, the researchers noted that when a critical number of monkeys was reached (the so-called "hundredth monkey"), the learned behavior instantly spread throughout the entire population, as well as the populations of neighboring islands.

As you yourself understand, awareness and high vibration of consciousness are not enough as such. You also need to be able to influence the world, remembering the commandment “do no harm.” Realizing that not only every action, but also every thought has a direct impact on the surrounding space of options, a person begins to see and experience it in a completely different way. Understanding cause-and-effect relationships, we become, first, more careful in our actions, and then simply more careful and respectful of our neighbors. Of course, the local matrix is ​​specially configured in such a way as to hide those same P-S connections, but this is the highlight - you yourself must understand everything from your own experience.

Remember how many meditations begin?"Be aware of your body, your arms and legs. Be aware of your fingers and even your nails and hair. Be aware of yourself in your room...". You can do the same with reality - you can be aware of it in all possible directions, projecting your consciousness there. First for fun (imagination), and then for real (astral projection).

The fact is that the presence of imagination is an underestimated ability by us to project our consciousness into other realities - the more imagination (creativity, intuition, connection with higher aspects), the greater the chances that you will have “super” abilities, although in any rule there are exceptions. And imagination can be trained.

If the observer realizes his multidimensionality, if his rays of attention begin to generate fractal realities within the framework of universal respect, a change in the frequency of the carrier wave occurs - its vibration increases, the world becomes more saturated. If the observer becomes fixated only on himself, ignoring his inseparability from the Unified Field, and lowering the tone of attention to the world, the world reacts with compression, lowering of vibrations, collapse of opportunities, withdrawal of energy and information. This is why the intelligence services supervise many channelers remotely, but do not try to win them over to their side - they know that the latter will not be able to receive the same information if they know that they are working for the authorities (and the authorities, in turn, cannot receive it themselves , because they lost trust a long time ago)

A little history:

A long time ago, man had a higher level of vibration and the ability to influence the environment, but he began to use them with destructive effect. The vibrations of people decreased, and the matrix also reacted.
In addition, we should not forget that our thoughts influence not only the visible reality, but also the neighboring, not necessarily tangible ones (and they also have different vibrational levels).

By neighbors we should understand not only parallel worlds and civilizations, but also our own parallel aspects (parallel incarnations), our descendants and predecessors, because we all exist in timelessness. And since human thought is capable of penetrating the multidimensional fabrics of the Universe in all directions at the same time, we began to weave our own patterns in foreign territories, violating that very basic “do no harm,” whether consciously or not. This gave the neighbors a reason (at first legal, and then not entirely) to pacify the rampant people using various methods, including lowering the vibrational characteristics of our local matrix through the installation of various emitters that lower the general level of consciousness. Now these emitters (and others) are called , but the idea itself is far from new.

Nothing just happens, you understand.

Let us remember the alchemists who lost their gifts of turning any ore into gold, purely because of their greed - they lowered the vibrations of consciousness and lost their genius. Let us remember the Atlanteans and their experiments on animals, as well as climate. Let us also remember the events of our days, many of which we simply ignore in everyday life.

There are plenty of examples of lowering the general energy-informational background by gangs of monsters and scoundrels. Our outright ignorance is enough.

Unfortunately, people, for the most part, believe that their behavior and thoughts have nothing to do with surrounding events, completely denying the principle of communicating vessels - energy-informational Karma, which sooner or later will dot the T's.

People have forgotten how to think for themselves, and prefer to be guided by populist principles (the general average statistical pattern), which maintain their comfort zone even if they don’t want to. They avoid forming personal opinions and depend on various egregors, both in everyday life and in the long term. Let us remember, for example, how the bandits of the 90s built churches to atone for their sins, while still killing. Let's remember how any friend can suddenly turn out to be... an enemy if he is a member of another political party or supports another football team. There are more than examples...

And all dissidents, both people and the matrix itself, make unwanted outcasts, so don’t be surprised if on your path to discovering your true potential you encounter fewer and fewer average friends and more and more problems (with loved ones, finances, etc.). This is just an attempt by the general field to pull you back into its snare.
By potential I do not mean levitation or telepathy, although we are not so far from them. I mean understanding the ongoing processes from the point of view of the paradigm that has been kept silent from us for hundreds (thousands?) of years, but which is now becoming open to study - understanding our cosmic nature and true purpose in the Universe.

The world is changing, and this process is inevitable, whether you see it or not yet. If you have read this crazy nonsense to the end, then imagine what these lines would have looked like 20 years ago, from which institution I would have written them, and under the supervision of which pundits. Is this not the same Transition that everyone has been waiting for, but which quietly crept into our world, systematically changing our universal pattern, so as not to harm?

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

HIGH SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Faculty of Management

Essay on Philosophy

on the topic “Is knowledge necessary and how do we know anything at all”

Pavlov Nikita

Group No. 123

Moscow 2013

“Is knowledge necessary and how do we know anything at all?”

Knowledge! There is no doubt that most adults, capable and mentally healthy people believe that they know a huge number of things: from, in our time, fundamental knowledge such as knowing how to read and write correctly to knowing the composition of their favorite football team. But it's not that simple. From time immemorial, knowledge has been the subject of the most important philosophical debates and a reason for thought and reflection, and remains so throughout human history. Starting from Aristotle (“All people by nature strive for knowledge” - “Metaphysics”, book 1) and Socrates (“I know only that I know nothing”), and ending with the philosophers of the 19-20th century. Such interest on the part of philosophers in knowledge and the subject of knowledge is not surprising, because any judgment, any conclusion and any theory is based on the fact that the person who presented it relies on some kind of knowledge, and even in the statement of Socrates, cited a little earlier, a paradox is obtained - the knowledge that Socrates knows nothing is still present. But let me take a closer look at this specific example a little later.

The first thing to do is try to define what knowledge is? Why do different people think they know things that are essentially contradictory? Let's try to assume that only facts can be knowledge; subjective opinions do not count. But who determines what is a fact and what is not? For example, the contradiction between the atheistic theory about the emergence of man, taught in the USSR, and the creationist concept in pre-revolutionary Russia. Some relied on Scientific Atheism as a subject, while others relied on the Holy Scriptures. Both groups were absolutely confident that they had the facts and therefore knowledge. But now both opinions are subjective, and accepting the first or second as truth depends rather on the worldview of each person individually. A fact must not only be true, but also justified, so much so that a person who considers this or that judgment to be a fact must understand and accept all stages of this very justification. Thus we come to a definition widely used by philosophers up until 1963:

“Knowledge is an opinion that is justified and true”

Edmund Guethier questioned this definition with his example, expressed in an everyday situation:

“John knew that his colleague Susan usually drove to work in a blue Ford. So when John saw a blue Ford parked outside the building, he was sure that Susan was at work.

But one day Susan walked to work because her car had broken down. However, someone accidentally left another blue Ford of the same model in her parking space. John, driving past this car, thought that Susan had gone to work today.

Was John aware of Susan’s presence in the building?”

If we look at this example, it is not difficult to understand that John’s opinion is true: Susan was really present at the workplace. It seems to be justified, but although John believes that his justification functions the same as always, on this particular day it was not fully true. So John had every reason to think that Susan had come to work. However, in the situation under consideration, these premises, quite by chance, had no real connection with the truth of his judgment.

Did Getye really manage to find conditions under which a justified true opinion is not knowledge?

This example received a very wide response, until 1969, when E. Goldman proposed introducing another criterion of knowledge - casual. The condition for the truth of this criterion is the correct reconstruction of the cause-and-effect relationship of the chain of events that led to the current state of affairs in the mind of the person claiming knowledge. In the example given earlier, John incorrectly assessed the situation in the sense in which the events actually took place, and therefore his belief cannot be called knowledge, although it does correspond to the truth.

But even at this point, the definition of knowledge was not fully formalized - the next stage was the introduction of a new criterion of “immutability”, authored by K. Lehrer. This criterion means that we can consider knowledge to be knowledge if and only if, after presenting to a person a real and complete picture of the operations performed, he does not lose confidence in his knowledge.

Based on the information presented, we will finally try to independently derive a definition of knowledge, so:

“A person can call knowledge only an opinion that is based on well-founded facts, provided that the person understands and accepts the justification of these very facts and all its stages, as well as his vision of the full picture of events with the preceding cause-and-effect relationship”;

Now that everything is more or less clear with terminology, it’s time to ask one of the main questions: where does knowledge come from? Let's try to speculate on this topic, first recalling the earlier quote from Socrates:

“All I know is that I know nothing”;

Where does knowledge come from? How to answer this question?

There is no doubt that what we do not know will not help us in this, and what we already know can illuminate things only in a known area and cannot create new knowledge in another area that is in no way related to the subject.

Perhaps we learn something from other people? But where did those other people get this knowledge?

Our fundamental question was continued - where did the very first knowledge come from?

Is it possible to assume that there was some kind of original experience or experiment from which the first knowledge was obtained? Obviously, no, because any experience or experiment presupposes existing knowledge about the norms and guidelines for its implementation. Some initial knowledge...

Thus we must accept the idea that there was some original source of knowledge from which all subsequent knowledge was derived. We have no idea about this source, and that is all we have the right to say. But without a doubt it exists, otherwise we have acquired all the other, more complex knowledge.

Now, after these considerations, from my point of view, we can completely agree with the seemingly contradictory statement of Socrates. We know that we know nothing, because if we have no idea where knowledge comes from, then what value is all the knowledge that we have previously acquired?

But there is some non-primary, but fundamental knowledge: one cannot deny the ability to read, count and write?

In my opinion, from a philosophical point of view, it is possible.

After all, if we consider the ability to count, write and read as knowledge, then this comes into some confrontation with the definition, since we do not see the whole picture and cannot trace where the thoughts in our head come from, which, for example, are then written down on paper . It may seem strange - people are aware of the structure and principle of operation of the brain in great detail, but cannot even approximately determine what the final product of this work is. After all, as Rousseau said:

“The more people know, the more insignificant their knowledge seems to them.”;

The ability to read, or extract a root, or draw graphs is somewhat similar to the ability of a caged parrot to press a button with its beak to obtain grain. This parrot hardly knows anything about the principle of a lever, about the structure of this simple mechanism, about the presence or absence of these same seeds in it, and, probably, he will be very surprised if, suddenly, after pressing with his beak, food does not fall out as, for example, , the owner forgot to put it there.

A parrot absolutely does not create grain by pressing a button, but we create thoughts?

And if so, then for what reason can we not describe the process of their creation?;

In my opinion, we again encounter the problem of a vicious circle, as in the case of the primary source of primordial knowledge. It is impossible to understand how thoughts arise, because to do this you have to start the same incomprehensible thought process. From this we can conclude that until people learn to perceive this world without using mental work, the secret of the origin of thoughts will remain a mystery.

But let's return to the problem of knowledge. In order to better understand the subject, one should try to classify it, because, as A.V. Slavin said: “It is advisable to classify all new knowledge acquired by a person. The grounds for classification can be very different.”

Philosophers have often tried to divide knowledge into groups and subgroups; the complexity of the structure of human knowledge lies in the fact that the term itself can have different meanings in different disciplines and among different people. Confucius distinguished high knowledge - acquired at birth, low - acquired by teaching, and, finally, knowledge acquired by overcoming difficulties and life problems. Aristotle classified knowledge according to the degree of perfection. In the Middle Ages, it was believed that only the Almighty could possess true knowledge, and the lot of people was lower knowledge. Nowadays knowledge, in accordance with a large philosophical dictionary, knowledge is divided into ordinary and theoretical, empirical and logical, sensory and rational, knowledge of the individual and knowledge of the collective, scientific, etc.

The reason for such a huge variety of types of classification of knowledge is that knowledge is the field of attention of a number of disciplines - philosophy, logic, psychology, history and sociology, etc. Each of these disciplines highlights its own aspect of knowledge analysis, respectively - philosophical, logical, heuristic, historical and sociological. It is not difficult to guess that in each case knowledge is classified according to unique parameters.

The presence of such a concept as knowledge in each of such different disciplines only speaks of the need for its presence in so many areas of life. Thus, despite some illusory nature and the impossibility of finding the original source, knowledge in one format or another has been a necessity at all times, because doing any business requires some kind of initial preparation and understanding of the object of activity.

But how do people acquire new knowledge?

There are several ways:

1) Gaining new knowledge based on personal experience, for example, a child learns to walk and talk

2) Gaining knowledge from other people: from teacher to student, from father to son, from author to reader, and so on. Divided into two types

2.1) In person

2.2) Using specific, previously prepared material, without personal presence.

So, to summarize:

1) Is knowledge necessary?

Everything directly depends on which side you approach the question from:

If you look at it from the point of view of a philosopher, then, in my opinion, knowledge is partly useless, because we cannot establish a clear structure, we cannot even give a comprehensive definition of what knowledge is. And if a philosopher cannot understand what it is, then what is the use of all its derivatives?

But from the point of view of the average person, knowledge is certainly a necessity and it is very difficult to imagine a person who would not have any knowledge at all.

2) Where does knowledge come from, and how do we know anything at all?

As was said earlier, it is almost impossible for a person to determine where the very first, primordial knowledge came from, just as it is impossible to understand how thoughts are developed.

But, in fact, a person is able to gain knowledge either through personal experience or from other people.

To summarize, we can, without a doubt, say that knowledge is one of the most complex and at the same time important topics in philosophy. This is a certain task, which, due to its complexity, will always be interesting in all areas of life and is unlikely to lose relevance.

knowledge source thought experience

Bibliography

1) Asmus V. Metaphysics of Aristotle / V. Asmus // Aristotle. Works: In 4 vols. Aristotle. M., 1975. T. 1. P. 5-50.

2) Large philosophical encyclopedic dictionary / Ch. Editor: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. - M.: Sov. Encyclopedia, 1983. - 840 p.

3) Philosophy: university course: textbook / S. A. Lebedev [etc.]; under general ed. S. A. Lebedeva. - M.: Grand, 2003. - 525 p.

Posted on Allbest.ur

Similar documents

Knowledge and faith are concepts that reflect the basis of the relationship between the world and man. Faith as information, the truth of which we take at our word. Varieties of faith. Religion is a form of social consciousness. The formation of the problem of knowledge. The relationship between faith and knowledge.

test, added 02/04/2012


Scientific knowledge as knowledge of the causes of phenomena. Stages of development of science. Genesis of scientific knowledge. Threats and dangers of modern progress, social and moral responsibility of scientists for what is happening. Modern development of science and technology in the Russian Federation.

course work, added 07/10/2015


Science as a complex system phenomenon, true knowledge. Characteristic features of scientific knowledge: systematic, reproducible, deducible, problematic, verifiable, critical. The concept of hierarchically ordered and logically consistent knowledge.

test, added 06/04/2012


Science as a special sphere of cognitive activity. Knowledge, its definition and characteristics. Communication and broadcasting as synchrony and diachrony of scientific communication. Socrates' contribution to the understanding of cognition and the transmission of knowledge. About the global crisis in education.

thesis, added 02/15/2015


The process of reflecting the world in people's minds (cognition). Scientific facts as a support for knowledge. Understanding the world and science. Three sciences that study knowledge: epistemology, psychology of knowledge and logic. Classification of non-scientific knowledge, reflecting the still unknown.

abstract, added 05/13/2009


Specific forms of knowledge. Folk science as ethnoscience. Ordinary, personal knowledge and its features. Forms of extra-scientific knowledge. The relationship between reason and faith. Characteristics of deviant and abnormal knowledge. The attitude of famous philosophers to religion.

test, added 03/03/2010


The concept of knowledge as the result of knowledge of reality, the content of consciousness obtained by a person in the course of reproducing regular connections and relationships of the real world. Scientific, extra-scientific, everyday practical, intuitive and religious knowledge.

abstract, added 03/01/2016


Criteria of scientific knowledge in ancient natural philosophy: systematization, consistency and validity of knowledge. The relationship between space, time and matter from the standpoint of special and general relativity. Management of self-organization processes.

abstract, added 05/27/2014


Philosophical analysis of technical knowledge. The phenomenon of technical theory: features of formation and structure. Empirical and theoretical levels of technical knowledge. Consideration from the philosophical side of the practical activities of Nikolai Nikolaevich Benardos.

test, added 05/10/2012


The main task of studying philosophy is to learn to think. Developing the ability to apply acquired knowledge in one’s professional activities. Principles and models of rational thinking. Religious feeling and moral imperative.

Aristotle also wondered where axiomatic knowledge comes from, the very knowledge that is used in conclusions as true. And in fact, the premises used in inferences can be considered true either a priori, or as a result of common sense, or experience. When it is stated that all people are mortal, then this judgment is taken as true, as axiomatic knowledge. Meanwhile, the truth of this position, in fact, has not been proven. We only assume that there is no such person who could live practically forever; and this assumption does not mean that such a person cannot exist. It can be proven that this position is at least controversial and contradictory. Indeed, in the history of human society there are cases when people lived for more than 150 years. However, if a person lived to be 150 years old, it is plausible to assume that another could live to be 151 years old; or if he lived 151 years, then perhaps there will be a person who will live 152, 153 years or more, etc., ad infinitum.

And yet we take this proposition as true and have the right to use it as an axiomatic, since it allows us to solve some of our everyday practical problems, that is, to treat most people as mortals, since they can live about 75 years.

However, if you change the situation, for example, change the concept of life, then this judgment will not be true. Thus, until recently, a person who does not breathe and whose heart does not beat was considered dead. These arguments were assessed as correct and true, since they were confirmed hundreds, thousands and millions of times in practice. However, when the development of medicine showed that a person can be resuscitated even if there is no breathing and no heart beat, then these arguments lost their truth; and as an axiomatic premise they can no longer be used in a certain situation.

We can give other similar examples that will confirm the position we are considering. Meanwhile, several very interesting conclusions follow from it. First, no premise can be absolutely true. With a change in reality, circumstances, situations, and, accordingly, the conceptual content of the elements of a judgment, its axiomatic status changes from true to untrue (although maybe not to false - untrue is not yet false, just as vice versa) Second, the axiomaticity of a judgment is determined by our practical interests, the need to solve any applied problems. If the conceptual reflection of reality allows us to solve such problems in a utilitarian way, then the judgments created on the basis of these concepts allow us to use them as axiomatic, even if they have not been tested in practice or have not been fully proven. Third, the axiomatic nature of judgments is, first of all, the movement of concepts in accordance with that reality, which we take as axiomatic, that is, which reflects our understanding and our relationship with it. If, in order to solve our problems, we correctly reflect it in our concepts, then they acquire the status of axiomatic.

All these considerations turn out to be important for our further analysis, because misunderstanding of the mechanism of formation of axiomatic premises, concepts, and judgments leads to the opinion that syllogistic conclusions are a simple game of the mind in which the answer is known in advance. Or they come to the conclusion that we always operate with the knowledge that we had a priori, etc. Ultimately, the problem of axiomatic premises directly or indirectly results in the problem of obtaining new knowledge. In this case, the reference to experience and practice (and to common sense) is, in principle, correct, but it does not reveal the mechanism for obtaining a conclusion and leaves open the question of the formation of axiomatic premises.

Although in this work we do not set ourselves the task of solving this problem (it is too complex for one such work), nevertheless, if our research helps to move even a little forward in solving it, we will consider that we have completed our task.

As a starting point, we will put forward the proposition that question-answer relations are relations of establishing axiomatic premises. We have already written that a question is a process of developing conceptual knowledge that takes a hypothetical form, that is, the form of possibly true knowledge. It remains hypothetical until it receives confirmation of its truth by some reality or practice. The first step is checking with yourself. Already at this stage it becomes a true concept for us, and we use it as an axiomatic one. The second stage is checking in dialogue mode with an opponent; and if an agreement is reached in it, then for two it becomes axiomatic, and therefore suitable for further reasoning and proof. The third stage is a test based on past human knowledge, and the fourth is a test by practice, the development of reality as a more general system in relation to the other three. But every time the relationship between the subject of cognition and reality (i.e., the answer), no matter what level they are, acts as a question-answer relationship; and they allow us to develop knowledge that acquires positive, objective content.

Of course, the development of axiomatic knowledge is not a simple agreement between two interlocutors, although in form it appears that way; this agreement is a reflection of the movement of reality, and therefore acquires an axiomatic character. Another thing is that the process of cognition may not reflect all of reality, but only some part of it, which becomes such as a result of the interaction of subject and object; and within the framework of their interaction it becomes true, although it may not be true for the wider community of interaction with reality.

The axiomatic nature of knowledge, as we have found out, cannot be absolute; it is only some idealization when a certain scale of truth is accepted. For a given situation or nature of the movement of reality, it can at the same time be both true and untrue, completely true or incompletely true. But for each specific case, for example, within the framework of our interaction between subject and object, it always becomes absolutely true. It may possibly be true for another objective reality, for example, for another system of communication between subject and object, but for a given system of communication it is absolutely true. It may or may not be true, there is no third choice: in this case, true for itself, for a given object of reality.

That is why in some cases the premises in a conclusion are accepted as axiomatic, but in others (or for other people, or in another Burden, or in other situations, etc.) - they turn out to be or may be non-axiomatic. We can use premises as axiomatic if they are developed on the basis of an analysis of a given reality and are used only in it, if they are derived in the process of interaction between a certain subject of cognition and an object and are used only within the framework of a specific reality: outside its framework they do not work, and it is necessary to develop new axiomatic provisions, etc.

Due to this circumstance, as well as the fact that axiomatic premises always appear in the form of our past knowledge, the conclusion may be incorrect, even if it was obtained on the basis of all the laws of formal logic. This does not indicate the vulnerability of the formal laws of the formation of syllogisms, but rather that the knowledge with which formal logic operates may be incorrect. While true in themselves, premises can be false in relation to each other, that is, they belong to different systems, have different levels of true knowledge, depend on past knowledge, etc.

In formal logic, only the forms of the flow of knowledge are studied. It has its own laws of functioning, but does not depend on the content of the knowledge that it carries within itself. And if, observing all the laws of formal logic, we received an incorrect conclusion, then it is not the form that is to blame, but the content, i.e., the untruth of axiomatic premises, etc. The problem of axiomatic knowledge is a rather complex problem, and it is determined not only by the concept truth.

In the theory of knowledge, there are two traditions of explaining where reliable, true knowledge comes from. The first is called rationalistic and appeared during the polemic between Socrates and the Sophists.
The Sophists were a group of thinkers formed in the 5th century BC. in Athens and defending positions of extreme skepticism. They said that it was impossible to know anything for sure and taught their followers to live without reliable knowledge about the world. In accordance with the famous statement of Protagoras that “man is the measure of all things,” the sophists called on people to “measure” things in accordance with their nature and needs. Socrates saw the danger of sophistic pedagogy in the corruption of students, since it teaches what the teachers themselves are not sure of the truth of. By asserting that truth is relative, the sophists deny the existence of generally valid concepts and norms and thereby deprive people of the opportunity to understand each other. And understanding is the basis of harmony and unity of society.
Socrates and his student Plato insisted that the basis of knowledge and learning are general concepts called universals. These universals are already contained in the human mind from birth and thus knowledge consists of remembering what we already know. But in this case, the question naturally arises of where these universals come from in our memory. Plato said that since we do not receive knowledge about them during life, this knowledge is inherent in us before birth. Children, as we know, know very little at first, because the soul forgets at birth its knowledge of general ideas, and then somehow reminds the consciousness of the knowledge already contained in it. In the dialogue “The Republic,” Plato explains in detail how memory is awakened and the knowledge of ideas is extracted from it. At the same time, he declares knowledge obtained through the senses to be unreliable, belonging to the first level. These are just pale semblances of the truth, vague ideas about it. True knowledge is the contemplation of the universals hidden in man. The first step on the path to this knowledge is to develop in oneself the consciousness that knowledge obtained through sensory perceptions is insufficient and often incorrect. The same object, considered from different points of view, turns out to be different, and the mind fails to comprehend its true nature. Therefore, one must abandon reliance on sense data and move on to exploring the world of universals in one’s own soul. The best way to achieve this is through mathematics, which develops thinking skills and helps to relate different ideas to each other. A complete understanding and comprehension of the nature of universals is ensured by the practice of dialectics.
A point of view similar to Plato’s on the source and foundations of our knowledge was defended by the French mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes. To test the reliability of our knowledge, he proposed starting all knowledge with doubt about the available information about the world. By successively eliminating facts that did not stand the test of the principle of doubt, Descartes came to the conclusion that there are only two facts whose truth cannot be doubted. The first of them is expressed in the now popular expression: “I think, therefore I exist” (Cogito ergo sum). The second undoubted truth is, according to Descartes, the existence of God. The distinctive features of undoubted truths, which allow us to separate them from lies and delusions, are clarity and distinctness. On this basis we can have complete confidence in the truth of all mathematical knowledge, since mathematics deals exclusively with clear and distinct innate ideas.
The theories of knowledge of Plato, Descartes and others like them are called rationalistic. They claim that by using certain logical procedures, with the help of the mind alone, true knowledge can be obtained. This knowledge is knowledge of universals (general concepts) that are innate to us, and from which particular knowledge can be deduced. The forms of rational knowledge are concept, judgment and inference. The philosophical discipline that studies the forms and laws of rational knowledge is called logic.

The second tradition, which explains the nature of true knowledge, is called empiricism. The philosophers who represent it deny the existence of innate knowledge and are generally skeptical about the possibility of obtaining reliable knowledge based on reason alone. The evidence for the existence of ideal objects that Plato, Descartes, Leibniz and other rationalists give are not at all convincing for other philosophers and scientists and do not always agree with the data that is discovered in the course of the development of science. The dynamics of scientific knowledge and periodically occurring revolutions in the nature of human thinking indicate that absolutely reliable and unchangeable truths do not exist even in mathematics, which is perceived by rationalists as an ideal. An example is the emergence of non-Euclidean geometry, which contains theorems that are not true in classical geometry.
These doubts about the reliability of the rationalistic theory of knowledge have prompted many philosophers to search for explanations that would answer the question of where we get our knowledge and what degree of reliability this knowledge has. These philosophers take the data of sensory perception as the basis and source of human knowledge and, on this basis, try to explain any other knowledge. The theory of knowledge, which considers sensory experience to be the source of knowledge, is called empirical.
Empirical philosophy appeared and developed in England and the USA - countries in which material values ​​and practical interests came first. In the states of continental Europe with a rich philosophical history, such as Germany, France and Russia, on the contrary, rationalist philosophy dominated. The beginning of empiricism was laid by the industrial revolution in England, which began in the 17th century and was a powerful stimulus for the development of experimental natural science. Isaac Newton, Robert Hooke, Robert Boyle and other scientists who laid the foundations of scientific and technological knowledge that are still used today did not set themselves the goal of discovering absolute and undoubted truths about the world. They solved very specific practical problems and in the process formulated plausible hypotheses about the world around them, some of which were confirmed and received the status of theories, while the rest were supplanted by competing explanations.
With the accumulation of natural scientific knowledge about the world, a need arose for philosophical theories that would contain an explanation of the process of cognition in terms of sensory experience. The first such theory was proposed by Francis Bacon (1561-1626), an English statesman and philosopher, the author of the famous saying: “Knowledge is power, and he who masters knowledge will become powerful.” But the most consistent criticism of rationalism is contained in John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In this work, Locke tries to prove that we have no innate ideas, and all knowledge comes from impressions received from the senses. The human mind from birth can be likened to a blank slate (tabula rasa), devoid of any images of ideas. And only in the course of life, on the basis of experience acquired either through the senses, or by observing the inner world of a person, knowledge about the world is acquired. According to Locke, there are only two sources of knowledge: sensory perception and introspection (reflection). Only in this case do we have sufficient grounds to be sure that this knowledge is true and that objects outside us correspond to it.
The initial form of sensory cognition is sensations arising as a result of the influence of objective reality on the senses. The most important types of sensations are visual, tactile and auditory. They deliver information about the color, temperature, and density of external objects. The second form of sensory cognition - perception - provides a holistic reflection of objects in the real world, primarily their shape, size, and location. The most complex form of individual sensory reflection is a representation that acts as an image of a previously perceived object or phenomenon.
The main disadvantage of the empirical approach to explaining cognition is that the senses bring us knowledge about individual objects and individual properties of these objects. The relationships between things, the nature of many processes remain beyond the capabilities of sensory knowledge. This is especially noticeable when analyzing causal relationships between events. The English philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) convincingly proved that the occurrence of one event after another does not mean that the previous event is the cause of the subsequent one. The conjugacy and sequence of two or more events, perceived by us in a sensory way, is not yet proof of the existence of cause-and-effect relationships between them. What we take for such connections is nothing else. Like our mental skills and habits. Since the principle of causality is of key importance in explaining events occurring in the world, Hume's criticism had far-reaching consequences and led to an increase in skepticism regarding the possibility of not only rational, but also empirical justification of true knowledge. Earlier, philosopher and bishop of the Anglican Church George Berkeley (1685-1753) showed that qualities obtained through the senses - color, sound, shape - are subjective, because nothing indicates that these qualities belong to external objects.
Thus, the question of what we humans can know reliably about the internal and external world is insoluble from the extreme positions of rationalistic and empirical theories. The founder of English empiricism, Francis Bacon, drew attention to this with the help of the allegories “the path of the ant,” “the path of the spider,” and “the path of the bee.”
“The Way of the Ant” is a method of extreme empiricism, characterized by the simple collection of facts obtained on the basis of sensory impressions, without systematizing or comprehending them.
"The Way of the Spider" well illustrates the method of radical rationalism, which attempts to deduce knowledge from a few innate ideas. In this way he is similar to a spider, weaving a web from the material that he himself produces.
“The Way of the Bee” removes the extremes of empiricism and rationalism and represents a two-stage process of cognition: the senses provide data about the properties of objects, which are then processed by the mind using the methods and principles of theoretical thinking.
Bertrand Russell, an English mathematician and philosopher, rightly noted that no one has yet managed to develop a theory of knowledge that would be logically consistent and at the same time inspire confidence in its reliability. The actual course of knowledge is complex and contradictory, but the impressive achievements of natural science over the past fifty years have become possible, including thanks to the ongoing attempts of scientists and philosophers to create a compromise theory of knowledge that would combine the positions of empiricism and rationalism.