Perhaps no one science had not so often to answer such a question. Meanwhile, the answer invariable is not the first Millennium.
Philosophy is a science about thinking , and about thinking a certain kind of scientific, logical thinking, thinking, which, regardless of the will and consciousness of a particular researcher plays in terms of the material world and its objective laws. Philosophy, in other words, there is a science about method, about how the human mind is aware of the form of internal self-movement of the content items – regardless of the specific person and the specific subject of his study. In any field where one is engaged in practical activity, in any field where one is engaged in creative work, in short, in any area which is the subject of the human mind, philosophy finds its object in the form of this thinking. In this sense it is the science of the universal laws of thought, nature and society. In the same sense, not so far from the truth of the positivist point of view, if any particular science is itself a philosophy. More correctly, however, it would be to say that philosophy applied to the subject of any specific, positive science, and it is this very science. Then the question arises: why in this case do spend time on the philosophy: is it not better to delve more deeply into issues of specific Sciences? This is a philosophical question.
Should the fish possess knowledge of fluid dynamics to swim? Or the driver of the car a deep understanding of the motor unit to drive? Similarly, for a scientist today, for the most part, there is no need to understand what the objective laws based its activities. All you need is to learn how to use these laws in their own scientific sphere, to understand the rules by which it operates private science. But what if, in some science, the set of such rules has not yet been created? And then the scientist forced to become a philosopher – a spontaneous, inept philosopher, and therefore – bad. The skills that he learned spontaneously in their field, can’t him anything to help – and to solve the toughest problems it is suitable from the standpoint of mere common sense. But, as Engels wrote, the human common sense, a very distinguished companion of the four walls of the household, experiencing the most amazing adventures as he ventures out in the wide expanse of research.
Note that the objective laws of self-movement of concepts which constitute the subject of philosophy, to some extent, coincide with common sense. Over the millennia of scientific knowledge mankind could not come to the fact that whatever we argued, should execute certain rules of reasoning: consistency, consistency, thoroughness. In short, to what is called formal logic. Today this area was greatly developed in the form of mathematical logic. But hardly formal logic is precisely the method that we were looking for when trying to solve the problem that arise in specific Sciences and specific human activities: obviously, the method will substantially depend on the subject of this activity, consider the logic of the movement of concepts in General, and the logic of the movement concepts that reflect this particular subject. The task of philosophy is to deliver a logical machine to generate this logic. To do this, she doesn’t have a lot of money: to create a theory of knowledge the scientific worldview of philosophical science must build on this theory, primarily in relation to itself and especially the logic of all scientific knowledge and all development at all. This is addressed
the philosophy is a logical system, a system of categories covering all logically conceivable types of the movement of thought, dialectical logic. The dialectical logic of interest to us only insofar as it helps us to recover the concrete dialectic of the Sciences we are interested not so much “business logic” as “logic works.” This requires the use of logic as the science of knowledge in the whole volume of its development, science of reflection of the peace movement in the movement of concepts. But before talking about the movement of concepts, it would be nice to establish what is there is a concept – to deploy its logical conclusion. But this would mean to implement “business logic”, to create their own dialectical system.
This work was first conducted by the great German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel and until now, the system proposed in the “Science of logic” remains the only one of its kind. Needless to say, we are important, not so much the system of Hegelian categories as a dialectical method – because of him we started this whole conversation. But this method must first be deployed, being applied to yourself, otherwise we will not get conscious dialectics. In this case, a great help can have a the study of dialectic, spontaneously brought in the other Sciences, the allocation of General, re-establishment of that method which is subordinated to all of them. The invaluable help can have the experience of studying logic great sample of the conscious application of dialectics is the “capital” of Karl Marx. But in order to see the logic of “Capital” need to have an idea about the logic itself. And in this case Hegel is that there is no replacement, despite his idealism, sometimes excessive mysticism, ambiguity and verbosity, redundancy of the text is burdened by obscure for the modern reader with information from the history of philosophy, despite the sometimes outdated provisions and methodological guidelines, and numerous “errors of idealist,” the Hegelian system remains singular: much has been written about the dialectic, especially in Soviet times, but never given her.
The main objective of our circle is to isolate this dialectical core of the Hegelian constructions, to clear it from the husk and idealistic to Express it – albeit not on forty sheets and in the form of available modern textbook, examples and problems. The vast majority of courses to suit non-system dialectics: it or reduce to the amount of examples and private scenes – worse than this, it is difficult to imagine something to submit, or forget about the rigor, abuse of evidence with authority, intimidation and obfuscation, or given in an indirect form, through the works of later authors (Engels, Vazulin, Ilyenkov etc.) – often brilliant philosophers, but, again, to appreciate the genius of their logical constructs should have an understanding of the dialectical logic itself.
The shortcomings in our work, to some extent, connected with our loneliness in this rather ambitious task. If you are interested in Marxism and the philosophy of Marxism, if you have already come to realize the need of work from Hegel, but can’t overcome the fear of a “Science of logic”, if you will, on the contrary, in the fifth time I read the “Logic” of the other philosophical literature of the time and willing to help in her development of others – we invite you to take part in our mug and get a little closer to a bright future of theoretical Marxism.
For the record: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScF2kWy_HY4Qdjx3X8wsPFNN3jqp5-TLHxmI-v3xDYru-0_vw/
The classes are held online in the software arena every Sunday starting from 03.02.. Invitation to the server will be sent within three days from the time of the recording.
With comrades from Moscow it is possible to conduct face-to-face classes. First lesson (trial) will be held 27.01.2019
The course involves homework after each seminar and conducting the examination for translation into the second division at the end of the semester.
© 2019, z-news.link. All rights reserved.