The idea of spiritual comprehension by human of his own life, science, world of culture in the philosophical writings of V. Shynkaruk and in the concepts of M.A. Bulatov

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

The idea of spiritual comprehension by human of his own life, science, world of culture in the philosophical writings of V. Shynkaruk and in the concepts of M.A. Bulatov

Savchenko V., Postgraduate student

Department of History of Philosophy

Annotation

human integrity shinkaruk bulatov

The article is devoted to the analysis of the paradoxes of the concept of human integrity, developed in the researches of V Shinkaruk and M. Bulatov in the 1980's. The categories of dialectics of integrity and their essential paradoxes as special anthropological phenomena are revealed in the article as an important source of intellectual and existential experience for modern man; The specific features of this dialectic are analyzed. Particular attention is paid to the “internal mechanisms” of the very dialectical reflection on being in culture and the scientific mind and its paradoxical nature. The relevance of the paradoxes of human integrity, revealed in the epistemological works of V Shynkaruk and M. Bulatov, for modern philosophy of science is shown.

Keywords: categories of dialectics of integrity, philosophical anthropology, epistemology, personal wholeness.

Анотація

Стаття присвячена аналізу парадоксів концепції людської цілісності, розробленої у дослідженнях В. Шинкарука та М. Булатова у 1980-х роках. У статті розкриваються категорії діалектики цілісності та їх сутнісні парадокси як особливі антропологічні явища як важливе джерело інтелектуального та екзистенційного досвіду сучасної людини; аналізуються особливості цієї діалектики. Особлива увага приділяється «внутрішнім механізмам» самого діалектичного відображення буття в культурі та науковому розуму та його парадоксальності. Показано актуальність парадоксів цілісності людини, виявлених у гносеологічних працях В. Шинкарука та М. Булатова, для сучасної філософської науки.

Ключові слова: категорії діалектики цілісності, філософська антропологія, гносеологія, особистісна цілісність.

The main text

Purpose of Research. At the end of the 20th century, a holistic approach to the analysis of cultural and anthropological problems related to the development of the concept of integrity was actualized in philosophy. In particular, the Kiev philosophical and anthropological school became the original and heuristically valuable trend in late Soviet philosophy, at the source of which stood P. V. Kopnin and V I. Shynkaruk and which has formed several generations of talented authors, fruitfully working in our time.

The first half of the 60s of the twentieth century. in Ukrainian philosophy marked by the humanistic revival of the ideological, methodological and scientific culture of thinking. As a result of significant changes, the semantic load of dialectics and epistemology expanded, anthropological-existential code of thought was released, which revealed another semantic mode of transcendental idealism - the evolution of rational activity [1, p. 34]. In comprehending the achievements of Ukrainian scientists of this era, we note that in developing the methodological foundations of the categorical apparatus of philosophy, an attempt was made to release (in the semantic sense) scientific theory, to find moments of unity of dialectics, logic of scientific research, epistemology, as well as perelogosity human consciousness - the existential basis of epistemology [5, p. 45]. In this period, without exaggeration, there was a continuous transformation of scientific categories, complementary versions of the subject-theoretical activity and world outlook, which testified to the healing of philosophy [3, p. 3]. It is thanks to the revival in the domestic field of ideas of German classical philosophy in the writings of V. I. Shynkaruk, there was a gradual search for ideals and boundaries of the mind as a through form of the human way of worldview - dialectical thinking as a cognitive-spiritual unity of man and the world [6, p. 61]. The development of the thinker was important for the Ukrainian philosophy of the second half of the 80's and early 90's of the twentieth century. They are still relevant. The actualization of categories such as faith, hope, love, led to the creation of a new paradigm of worldview, based on the image of epistemology, addressed to man with his inner world, in the context of extra-scientific, life, and not just rational procedures. The phenomenon of epistemology in the thinking of V I. Shynkaruka was related to science, which went to the level of explaining the worldview of man. It was this idea, after all, that based his research on the philosophical heritage of I. Kant. Thus, the idea of rational as the pivotal moment of scientific culture has become ambivalent [6]. The anthropological richness of ideas of this thinker, overcoming the ideological obstacles of militant materialism, represented other semantic layers of epistemology. These are categories, among which reflection, the subject of cognitive activity, the logic of scientific knowledge, the imaginative function of consciousness, etc. [4, p. 35]. An image of holistic science was created in V. Shynkaruk's creative works - a moderate attitude of a person to being on a cognitive and existential level; the image of rational, culture [7] was built. In his writings, the central idea is the spiritual meaning of a man of his own life and, consequently, of science, of the world of culture [9]. His works became a kind of world-view revolution in the offensive atmosphere of contemporary philosophy, opened up unknown aspects of the development of scientific culture in the context of the positioning of freedom, creativity and cognitive activity of man.

Volodymyr Shynkaruk admitted that there were some differences between his approach and that of the Ukrainian and Russian philosopher Pavel Kopnin (1922-1971), in particular in understanding the problem of the identity of dialectic, logic and theory of cognition: “I had some differences with P. V. Kopnin. I defended understanding of their identities as identities of differences and focused not on logic (“Science of Logic”) but on the relation of “Phenomenology of Spirit” and “Science of Logic” (in terms of the correlation of the theory of cognition, logic and dialectics). “The Phenomenology of the Spirit” brought me directly to the philosophical problems of education, education, culture, personality and society, of man as a self-existent being” [5].

The direction of thinking on the “humanization” of dialectics was a certain trend, which encompassed a wide range of positions - from statements that did not threaten the official ideology, because they fit into the officially declared formula “all in the name of man”, to accents that went beyond the official boundaries. accepted rhetoric. These “revisions” of dialectics, related to changes in ways of thinking and speaking, were referred to in the statements about the “humanization of dialectics.”

According to V. I. Shynkaruk, in the 1950s, some Soviet philosophers (for example, V. P. Rozhin, M. N. Rutkevich) put forward the concept of the coincidence of dialectics, logic, and theory of knowledge, in which dialectics was regarded as the only philosophical science, including as part of the theory of knowledge. The latter, in turn, included as its integral part dialectical logic. This concept has been criticized in the works of P. V Kopnin, B. M. Kedrov for the purely external comparison of different “parts”, where identity is regarded as a mechanical coincidence of the part with the “part of the whole”. In many ways, this criticism was justified and just. However, it should be noted that the very thought of the relation of dialectics, logic and theory of cognition as the relation of subordination of different parts of a single whole has certain grounds and cannot be dismissed as something not worthy of consideration [8, p. 8].

Beginning in 1958, V. I. Shynkaruk begins publishing a number of scholarly works in which, unlike dogmatic “linearity”, he substantiates the position that the dialectical way of thinking is no less important and valuable achievement of the centuries-old experience of philosophy than the materialism, which the official Marxist-Leninist time focused on. Dialectics, however, were considered only in the framework of established interpretation, which deprived of its creative content.

A convincing confirmation of a new view of the dialectic, of the developing world, of man was the monograph of V I. Shynkaruk “Logic, dialectics and theory of Hegel's knowledge”. The publication of this book in 1964 was, without exaggeration, a landmark event for Ukrainian philosophy - and not just for it. It is from this work that the approval and development of the Kiev School of Philosophy and Anthropology begins [5]. Its programmatic task was the ideological and anthropological reorientation of philosophy. In this regard, V I. Shynkaruk goes through philosophy as an intensive extension of the experience of a culture of thinking, and a critical re-examination of those achievements that were concerned primarily with the problems of generality and individuality, not only in their reflexive but also in existential aspects. Spiritual and practical searches VI Shynkaruk walked around the problem of self-determination in the world. In this regard, he is the founder of modern Ukrainian anthropology and human studies, finding himself “at the crossroads” (V. G. Tabachkovsky) of varieties of idealism: Hegelian and existentialist - “irrational reaction” to the rationalism of Enlightenment and German classical.

The undoubted and universally recognized achievement of Hegel according to Shynkaruk VI was the promotion of the idea of the objective origin of indicaps and the laws of theoretical thinking. But he developed this idea on a completely false idealistic basis, on the basis that he recognized that the definitions of human thinking are as objectively relevant as they are the definitions of thinking, of identical being, or of being identical with thinking. He tried quite seriously to prove that the terms “reason”, “logo” of the world should be understood literally, namely that the laws of the development of the world, common to all material and spiritual processes, are nothing but the laws of thinking [6, p. 272].

From the standpoint of recognizing the laws of true thinking only the laws of dialectics, Hegel also approached the question of the true subject of science of logic. The science of logic, in his opinion, should take as its object not the form of “finite”, but the form of “infinite” thinking, thinking, and identical being.

V. Shynkaruk points out that the humanistic stance is more pronounced in “Phenomenology of Spirit” and “Philosophy of Law” than in other Hegelian works. VI Shynkaruk notes here the German thinker's interest in man. Thus, when he speaks of the transition to a new era, to a new world, he also refers to the “world of new knowledge” - a philosophy that has befell the essence of the spirit, “science.” In “science” human consciousness for the first time rises to grasp the essence of the absolute spirit in the concept. “And this knowledge forms a new world, is the formation of a new spirit” [5, p. 39]. But this is only a principle, a beginning. The task is to develop a principle into a system, to create a “science”, and in such a way that it is accessible to all, because only by being accessible to the public, it can “create a spirit, create a new world” [5, p. 39].

Human-centricity permeates not only the purely existential-humanistic motives of the “Phenomenology of the Spirit” (the problem of “freedom”, “alienation”, the dialectics of “master and slave”, the relationship of “objectification”, etc., but also theoretical and cognitive motives. As V. I. Shynkaruk points out, “a more specific task arose - to uncover the laws of this self-understanding thinking, to transform its knowledge into a science, into a system of knowledge... > not traditional formal logic, but more perfect but different from it, new logic, the logic of absolute thinking” [5, p. 41]. It is through thinking person understands itself in the development of forms of mind (consciousness).

For the national philosophy of that time, the discovery of real dialectics, made by V. I. Khmelnytsky. Shynkaruk, as if to connect the epochs, opened the true pathos of culture, the “beauty” of the thought process itself. After all, Hegel - the most prominent dialectician of the New Age, not only by the composition, thinking, but also by consciously applied principles of thinking. The process of formation, the formation of his theoretical thinking, exceptionally favorably combined the ancient philosophical heritage (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc.), with the heritage of German classical idealism (Kant, Fichte, then Schelling), and all this with the understanding of historical experience. The bourgeois revolution and the whole history of social life in general. The very way of forming his views, and therefore his way of thinking, lay through the acquisition of samples of ancient dialectics (in connection with his youthful hobbies of the “spirit” of antiquity), then the idealistic dialectics of German classical idealism - and both focused on comprehending historical, sensible development. What Fichte and Schelling worked on, creating their methods of “synthesis” and “potentiation,” Hegel could already perceive critically, compare it as a finished result with samples of the dialectic of antiquity, correlate with the actual course of the historical development of social life and knowledge. It is in the process of such correlation, critical examination and development in relation to the solution of problems of the history of social life and cognition and that “the principles of the dialectical method of Hegel were formed. Since the very process of their elaboration was at the same time the process of developing the system of idealistic worldview, naturally, the Hegelian dialectic from the very beginning assumed an idealistic character,” Shynkaruk notes [5, p. 64-65].

The epistemological aspects of the paradoxes of human integrity have been formulated vividly in the book by M. A. Bulatov “Activity and structure of philosophical knowledge”. The main one, according to the author, is that “the real historical process of knowledge can never be completed; it is an infinite <...> ideal unattainable. And if a “border crossing” occurs to him, then it is not realized realistically, because in reality he is unattainable, but ideally, theoretically, in thinking. In this endless process of cognition is taken as if it was completed and the purpose of cognition was achieved, which leads to the emergence of paradoxes. Here is a picture similar to that which takes place in set theory. Although there are no boundaries for the formation of sets of increasing and increasing power, in the concept of “set of all sets” the infinite process of their formation is removed in the achieved integrity and leads to the emergence of theoretical-multiple paradoxes <...> they arise even when as a consistent ( ready) undertakes an endless process of knowledge “ [2, p. 208209]. However, it is easy to understand that this general epistemological paradox is ultimately derived from the basic paradox of self-positioning / self-denial of human integrity discussed above. After all, the “border crossing” is the correlate of that unattainable ideal of integrity, which immediately comes to self-denial in the form of logical paradoxes.

The objectivity of knowledge and the objectivity of the world appear in this case as a process, which is revealed in the concept of M. A. Bulatov in the following dialectical way. The first, initial stage of objectivity is the “thing in itself” as an object of the world, completely independent of the theoretical and practical activity of man. However, this thing is not an object - it becomes so only in relation to a knowing and active subject. Therefore, the actual objectivity of such a thing manifests itself as its relation to the activity of the subject: “The objectivity of an object involved in the sphere of human activity, lies in its resistance to transformation” [2, p. 165]. In this case, the “objective resistance” of the object of influence on him from the person - the resistance is not the transformation at all, and the transformation of arbitrary, chaotic, unconscious, transformation by means of inappropriate object of activity.

Objectivity as a resistance to unreasonable transformation is an indication of the object being transformed into the need to know the essence of the object itself. Achieving a new level of practice - the transformation of the object in accordance with its objective properties - is an expression of theoretical and practical objectivity as a mutual transition of subjective and objective. Having passed the stages of its dialectical manifestation in thinking and human consciousness, the procedural objectivity, as shown by M. A. Bulatov, comes again to objectivity as a “thing in itself”, represented by objects created as a result of human activity, and, finally - finally, separate from the will and consciousness of the subject.

The conceptual restructuring of consciousness is important: mass consciousness, developing on the basis of social practice, adopts, adapts to its needs those forms that ideologists and theorists have already developed. If in the era of ancient mythology, and in the Middle Ages, religion is opposed mainly by philosophy (its materialistic wing), then in the new time here joins a new worldview power - science. In pre-capitalist epochs, because agriculture prevails there, science exists only in its infancy; on the contrary, emerging from the needs of industry, in modern times it is developing especially intensively among other forms of social consciousness. The modern scientific and technological revolution leads to the fact that science becomes a direct productive force and thus - the power of the producers themselves. It penetrates into the field of activity in which the masses of people are employed not alone, but only. Thus, through production, it penetrates into the mass consciousness and revolutionizes it. Therefore, the scientific and technological revolution is of great importance for the development of a scientific mass outlook. This revolutionary influence becomes decisive if it is coupled with the socialist revolution. It is the unity of the socialist and scientific and technological revolutions that can finally eliminate the old worldview and introduce a new one [2, p. 25].

A certain difference between the theory of cognition, logic and dialectics has become, we can say, a tradition of philosophical thought, and it is legitimate, which is noted by many authors (for example, in his book Logic, Dialectics and Theory of Knowledge of Hegel (1964) V P. Shynkaruk considers the theory cognition as a system of cognitive relations of the subject and object, logic - as a system of concepts, categories that reproduce in their connection thinking and reflected reality as a whole).

All three of these theories are constructed, naturally, based on the materialistic decision of the basic question (principle) of philosophy, and since they differ in one way or another, the latter must change and be modified in the transition from one theory to another.

Thus, if logic studies not feeling, perception and imagination, but concepts, forms of thinking, then the main question of philosophy is in it in the form of the relation of thinking and being. This is a form of philosophical principle, one of its modifications, which is connected with the subject of logical analysis. It does not exhaust the whole content of the basic question of philosophy; because being confronts and reflects, it not only forms of thinking, but also perception, imagination, etc. Being as the object of thinking is reflected in the latter in the form of a system of concepts, and the very relation of thinking and being is the principle dialectical logic [2, p. 31].

Conclusions

Based on the above, we can draw the following conclusions: 1. For the domestic philosophy of that time, the discovery of real dialectics, made V. Shynkaruk, as if to connect the epochs, opened the true pathos of culture, the “beauty” of the thought process itself. After all, Hegel - the most prominent dialectician of the New Age, not only by the composition, thinking, but also by consciously applied principles of thinking. 2. M. Bulatov, in general, he analyzed six of its aspects: the dependence of the nature of dialectics on the epochs of culture, determined by socio-economic formations; change of the metaphysical method of thinking dialectical under the influence of the reorientation of philosophy from the study of nature to the study of culture; what is happening on this basis is a gradual awareness of the cultural and historical grounds of the categories of dialectics in the history of classical German philosophy; change of principle (main issue) of philosophy under the influence of socio-cultural development and - in this connection - transformation of the dialectical method; the contradictions of method and system as a phenomenon of culture, dialectics as the “algebra of revolution”, as a means of restructuring the whole culture of society.

References

1. Andros Ye. I. Ontologiya ukrayins'kogo svitosprijmannya: problema soczi'okul'turnykh priorytetiv // Fenomen ukrayinskoyi kultury: metodologichni' zasadi osmyslennya. K., 1996.

2. Bulatov M. A. Deyatelnost' i struktura filosofskogo znaniya. K.: Naukova dumka, 1976. 216 p.

3. Guk O. I. Problema czylisnosti lyudyny v ukrayinski'j filosofiyi pershoyi polovini XX stolittya / O. I'. Guk // Visnik KNU i'm. T. Shevchenka. Filosofiya, poli'tologi'ya. 2002. №42-45. S. 151-152.

4. Rozin V. M. Metodologicheskie usloviya postroeniya ontologii cheloveka [Methodological Conditions of Human Ontology]. Filosofskie nauki, 2015, no. 3, pp. 130-133.

5. Shynkaruk V. I. Logika, dialektika i teoriya poznaniya Gegelya (problema tozhdestva logiki, dialektiki i teorii poznaniya v filosofii Gegelya) / V. I. Shynkaruk; [vstup. sl. L. V. Guberskij; predisl. V. G. Kremen']; M-vo obrazovaniya i nauki Ukrainy', Kiev. nacz. un-t im. Tarasa Shevchenka.

6. Reprint. vospr. izd. 1964 g. Kiyiv: Kiyivskij universitet, 2014. 295 s.: portr. Ser. osn. v 2013 g. Na obkl. ser. ukr.: Dzherela filosofskoyi dumki v Kiyivskomu universiteti.

7. Bibliogr.: s. XXII-XXIV i v podstroch. primech. (Seriya “Istochniki filosofskoj mysli v Kievskom universitete”). ISBN 978-966-439-666-7

8. Shynkaruk V. I. (ed.). Chelovek i mir cheloveka [Person and a Person's World]. Kiev, 1977. 342 p. 4. Melkov Yu. A. “Kievskaya shkola filosofii”: osnovnye idei i kharakternye cherty [Kiev School of Philosophy: Main Ideas and Characteristic Features]. Visnyk Natsional'nogo aviatsiynogo universitetu. Ser.: Filosofiya. Kul'turologiya: zbirnyk naukovykh prats', 2008, no. 2, pp. 43-47.

9. Tabachkovskij V. G. Chym vabyla di'alektyka molode pokolinnya filosofiv-shistdesyatnykiv (rozdumy pro mi'ru samorefleksivnosti' dialektyki) // Fi'losofsko-antropologichni studiyi 2001. “Rozum, svoboda ta doli' dialektyki (Do 80-richchya Mariyi Zlotinoyi). K. 2001.

10. Tabachkovskiy V. G. V poshukakh nevtrachenogo chasu. Narysy pro tvorchu spadshchinu ukrains'kikh filosofivshistdesyatnykiv [In Search of Time Not Lost. Essays on the Creative Heritage of Ukrainian Philosophers of the 1960s]. Kiev, 2002. 300 p.

11. Yatsenko A. I. (1981) Sotsialno-prakticheskaya priroda i mirovozzrencheskaya funktsiya kategoriy kak form poznaniya, samosoznaniya i tselepolaganiya. Mirovozzrencheskoe soderzhanie kategoriy i zakonov materialisticheskoy dialektiki. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 187-205.

Размещено на Allbest.ru