Systematization and connections

Ontology

These are my convictions and therefore I believe that my worldview is contrary to both skepticism (especially its extreme stage of agnosticism) and dogmatism, since I believe that every person is doomed to know the truth and at the same time this truth is always relative, i.e. is always within the narrow limits of its applicability and therefore borders on delusion, since it always runs the risk of being exaggerated.

In this note, I would like not so much to write about my worldview as such, as to indicate what I do not agree with at this stage in the worldview of modern science, whose influence on people today is higher than any other areas of human culture.

The concept of the origin of the world

Of course, I mean the Big Bang theory, which claims that once there was no time, no matter, no space, and for no reason, which supposedly did not fit into the framework of our logical perception, the whole Universe with its complex laws arose from nothing.

It should be noted that the concept of the Big Bang itself has some scientific facts, but its philosophical generalization by some modern physicists (Hawking, etc.) is more than ugly.

First, I am always alarmed by such a formulation of the question when it is required to abandon logical principles due to the fact that they allegedly do not work in this area, because all this looks very much like religion.

Secondly, the grounds from which such a requirement follows always look insufficient, because they are just built on the logic from which it is proposed to abandon (a certain systematization of physical facts into theory requires the fulfillment of well-known logical principles).

Emergence from nothing

It should be understood that nothing this is a logical category of meaning of which lies precisely in the fact that it is devoid of any qualities due to which it is fundamentally incapable of changing. Even without going into a dialectical analysis of the necessary connection between nothing and being, one can see the absurdity of such a statement.

When we say that something has arisen from nothing, then by this the concept nothing loses its meaning exactly as nothing and melts something... Thus, instead of genuine nothing we get something with a sign nothing, which consists in absolute identity with oneself.

The emergence of time

It is on this absurd position that the assertion about the origin of time is based. Indeed, if there is no time yet, then there is nothing that could change, and if something can change, then, accordingly, time already exists and cannot arise from it.

The emergence of space

The same applies to space, which supposedly appears only in the process of inflation of the Universe. The question naturally arises - if there is no space yet, then in what way is the Universe expanding? But there is a question even more important - if there is no space, then where was the original singularity?

Empty space

There is also an understanding of space as a kind of vessel in which matter is located. In general, it is not difficult to imagine such a thing, but what is such a statement based on?

Absolute emptiness is stated by the fact that on a certain segment it is not possible to fix a specific form of matter known to us, which can be detected only by interacting with it special devices that a person uses in the process of research.

But is it possible only on the basis of the fact that we do not find anything known to us to draw a conclusion about absolute emptiness? No, such a conclusion is inappropriate, since it is fundamentally impossible to foresee that in the future there will not be found something hitherto unknown to us.

Matter and motion

Another characteristic mistake is attempts to endow the matter with its attributes. For example, sheer delirium is the concept of pure energy, which supposedly exists without a material object to which it belongs or pure time, which is supposedly some external force acting on matter, etc.

In fact, there is not and cannot be any movement outside the object, because nothing else moves but the object itself, not movement, energy changes the object, and another object affects the body with its inherent movement, energy, i.e. there is an interaction of bodies.

The same is the case with time. It is not an external force that makes objects change, but the very concept of time is abstracted from the observation of the movement of matter (change of objects). In other words, there is no absolute time, time is always relative to the object that changes, and the universal time of the Universe is nothing more than an abstraction of the motion of matter.

Infinity

Our knowledge is always limited by the framework of the known, therefore, only an understanding of the need for unlimited going beyond the limit can be infinite, i.e. such an understanding, where there are no absolutes limiting our knowledge.

In other words, the infinite, in principle, cannot be a certain number that exhausts everything that exists, and therefore existence is infinite, but it is infinitely cognizable by us in deepening cognition.

Unfortunately, many scientists see infinity only as a bad infinity - as soon as we calculate everything that is known, bring it under a certain model of the world, free from contradictions, and we will get genuine infinity, cognize everything that exists.

Such a view is actually identical to those archaic ideas of people, according to which our planet and the firmament visible from it were declared to the Universe.

Diagnosis

Of course, you could still write a lot, but the text came out already too long, and therefore not readable.

In general, one can see a serious idealistic tendency in science, which has not gone unnoticed by religion either, for it is not for nothing that it is trying more and more to try to fit in with science (this is especially evident in the light of the fact that the Pope recently publicly recognized the theory of evolution).

But faith in the triumph of reason should not fade, since truth has always prevailed in the formation of humanity over error, since otherwise we would have always remained at the same level without seeing technical progress.

Comments

In the light of the above, we can conclude that since our knowledge is inexhaustible, it is impossible to exhaust the meaning of matter with a certain term. Therefore, matter should have purely epistemological attributes, i.e. it is an objective reality existing outside and independently of any consciousness.

Physically or ontologically, one can say that matter is corporeality, a special bodily organization with an unlimited number of variations, due to which it is impossible to exhaust its meaning with a single concept, as has already been stipulated.

But its main significance lies in the fact that it is the bearer of all the attributes of objective reality, something to which everything is inherent, for there is nothing else in the monistic understanding of the world.

The picture of the world is something that should naturally change in a thinking person, if not even in connection with the rejection of their previous views, then at least due to the deepening of the existing ones.

These are my beliefs

The picture of the world is what naturally changes in a thinking person due to the deepening of existing views.

These are my beliefs

And what can change in a thinking person? Of course - a picture of the world. Thus, what changes is the picture of the world. A casserole with soup (borscht) is not a picture of the world, because it does not change. True, no - the picture, because the borscht changes - it turns sour. But the saucepan is definitely not a picture - the borsch is sour - but at least something in the saucepan. But I think about this pot and borscht, which means there is a picture, but the pot is not in the picture of the world, because it does not change, but there is borscht, because it changes ... etc. A continuous change of thoughts with their deepening, therefore, there is a picture of the world, but without a pot.

Yes, Gorgippus has a point-blank question about matter.

The change of the existing one can also be included in the deepening knowledge, but in this case something else was stipulated.

A person perceives the world in a narrow range of his feelings, reinforcing this perception with technical devices and due to this fact and the fact that, apart from this, not all perceptions are also fully comprehended, we fundamentally cannot say that our picture of the world is complete.

Finding new ways of interacting with the world, comprehending more and more we expand the existing picture of the world, deepen our knowledge of matter.

December 17, 2014 - 23:02,
A person perceives the world in a narrow range of his feelings, reinforcing this perception with technical devices and due to this fact and the fact that, apart from this, not all perceptions are also fully comprehended, we fundamentally cannot say that our picture of the world is complete.

So, can we start with this?
How to logically deduce from this situation:

17 December, 2014 - 22:21,
In the light of the above, we can conclude that since our knowledge is inexhaustible,

The inexhaustibility of knowledge.
Or is the inexhaustibility of knowledge an a priori axiom? And from it (inexhaustibility) it is necessary to deduce "the perception of the world in a narrow range of feelings"?

The inexhaustibility of cognition is not an axiom, but the result of an analysis of the practice of human cognition in general, which is not limited to modern knowledge either.

A person can cognize the objective world, and this is evidenced by the practice of his conquest of nature, but at the same time, whenever a person exaggerated the value of the known, he fell into error from which it follows that the truth is available, but it is always relative.

there is not a single fact of the conquest of nature by man.

The conquest of nature meant the ability to transform it in accordance with human needs. There can be no other conquest.

Nature is not homogeneous. Of course, nature remains nature after the transformation, but it is already a different nature than the one that was before. Idealism is also taken from this - a person creates, creates matter with his mind, i.e. transforms its forms under itself. Of course, this does not mean at all that matter is created literally out of nothing, although it can be said so, since from the position of a form that did not exist before, but now it is an emergence from nothing.

:-))) So you started to present some excerpts from your general "picture of the world". I called my worldview "my model of being", Galia "my worldview". By the way, she came closer to the commonly used term.

Both the "picture of the world" and the "model of being" are the term "worldview" used by all. And we object that we are not against the whole worldview, but against the "particulars" in which we see a contradiction to the general "picture"

This is how we contribute (together with millions of people like us) to the creation of a collective picture of the world and the birth of a supermind named Civilization. In you, I saw a person who is most similar to my type of thinking and methods of reasoning.

What about the conclusions? They can never be exactly the same. There is an infinite number of correct points of view for each object, and half of them will always be diametrically opposed to the other half. :-)))

Absolute understanding, and just understanding, between people is extremely unattainable; for understanding it is necessary to be at one point in time-space, but since we are always there and given our different physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual levels, absolute understanding is impossible; but man found a way out of this impasse by inventing a system of contracts; but, unfortunately, or fortunately, he reserved the right not to fulfill the agreements or even destroy them.

I also do not like the "big bang theory" and I dedicated two studies (18 and 19) to it "The Big Bang and the Rain of Matter" and "A Star Called the Sun".

You will need to read it.

You are investigating some particular questions, I others. In the study of some, we intersect and complement each other, or see errors and inaccuracies and correct each other, in other issues we intersect with other opinions.

Well, this is normal. In general, I think that it is very difficult for a person to look at things from all possible points of view, therefore constructive dialogue and lively communication are necessary, even when they sometimes lead us to disputes and opposition of opinions.

What about the conclusions? They can never be exactly the same.

I agree with this. In general, I try to avoid everything that is absolute, and even more so absolutes.

There is an infinite number of correct points of view for each object, and half of them will always be diametrically opposed to the other half.

In general, this is a very important conclusion based on an understanding of the contextuality (nesting in a certain context) of any thought. At the same time, inflating the meaning of a certain truth beyond its narrow applicability, a person always falls into error. This understanding is important in order to distinguish between the interdependence of dialectical opposites and the eclectic combination of fundamentally incompatible sides.

Philosophical ontology is a picture of the world that is normative for a specific philosophical system. Ontology forms a context (from ultimate foundations to a human model) in which subsequent philosophical constructions make sense.

The verbally presented world outlook of a particular person, perhaps, should also contain a description of the ultimate grounds accepted by this person and reach the accepted model of a person.

At the same time, the physical - to physicists, mental - to psychologists. The criticism of the physical picture of the world based on logic, or, more precisely, on everyday ("common sense") "I believe", "absurd", looks strange (in describing one's world outlook).

The criticism of the physical picture of the world based on logic, or, more precisely, on everyday ("common sense") "I believe", "absurd", looks strange (in describing one's world outlook).

Here the principle of Caesar's Cesarean does not fit. Logic is the science of universal forms of thinking, which is therefore a universal method of research, that it is abstracted from the specific content (physical, mental, etc.) and works with universal forms of thought, which are the same in all areas.

Rather, logic is not about the forms of thinking, but about the rules that must be followed in order to obtain the true result from the true premises by thinking. Yes, but logic is about thinking, not about the observed world. At this point, if the scientific data does not correspond to the logical inference results obtained from your individually obvious premises, then the individual premises need to be adjusted. Although Hegel "corrected" the logic -;)

Logic is not embedded in thinking, but develops on the basis of experience. If logic did not correspond to reality, then man would be at a dead end of evolution and would die out like many other species, since he would not be able to correctly determine his behavior under the appropriate circumstances.

And yes, logic is just about the forms of thinking. Rules are an empty formality, the very material with which logic works are universal forms of thinking, abstracted from the concrete content.

Any thinking is conceptual, and concepts always interact according to certain logical principles, regardless of which area of \u200b\u200bknowledge or science they belong to. Thus, the content of the sciences cannot be equated with one another, but the general principles of thinking must always be observed.

If logic did not correspond to reality, then man would be at a dead end of evolution and would die out like many other species, since he would not be able to correctly determine his behavior under the appropriate circumstances.

According to modern ideas about the work of the brain, as far as I know, the behavior is directly controlled by brain processes that are not felt by a person, and are based not on logic, but on precedents and enumerations. Logic is demanded by a person only in the field of communication, to justify or justify his actions (already chosen in front of partners.

Penrose describes his grandson's ability to operate with integers as proof that the concept of "natural series" appeared from somewhere above. Although, given the enormous information capacity of the brain, one can (easier) assume that the grandson uses separate images for each of the quantities encountered in his experience.

But the general principles of thinking must always be followed.

This is what I say: logic is a set of rules for thinking.

but I think that logic is a well-defined individual human ability to arrange their thoughts in a certain sequence depending on knowledge, skills, skills and on the place, time and specific conditions.

According to modern ideas about the work of the brain, as far as I know, the behavior is directly controlled by brain processes that are not felt by a person, and are based not on logic, but on precedents and enumerations.

But do not forget that understanding this is rational, i.e. we are dealing here with thinking about thinking, and not with direct thinking. You can prove 300 times that thinking is irrational, but the evidence itself will be purely rational, because we have nothing else to argue.

In other words, to understand something means to understand it at a logically systematized level, and this especially concerns the transfer of this understanding to other people, since without a certain systematization there is and cannot be understanding.

It's the same with physics. To prove that certain processes in nature must take place, we must use a rationally substantiated statement of facts, otherwise such a system will look like indistinct nonsense for everything, barely comprehensible even to its author.

Here you repeat the same mixture of phenomena of the observed world (which does should not in every fact to be rationally grounded) with human understanding of the observed phenomena, which I drew attention to in your original text

In general, in nature, at each level of organization, patterns specific to this level operate. Man evolved in a kind of drop of the big world, perceiving only a small part of the world in a narrow range of all dimensions. When we go beyond the boundaries of this drop ("human world"), we are faced with phenomena that contradict the classical (and, in fact, everyday) worldview. It is bad practice to simply dismiss the paradoxical in the data of specific sciences.

By the way, there is a connection here with the cognizability of the world, which you consider unlimited. After all, human knowledge is human. And progress beyond the boundaries of the "human world" not only requires an ever-increasing expenditure of resources, but also bumps into an inevitable and excessive lengthening of the chain of concepts - from the primary innate to new concepts. Niels Bohr imagined atomic particles in the form of balls. How to imagine something that is even deeper? Perhaps, the fundamental unboundedness of the world’s knowability will be limited by an actually insurmountable framework.

When we go beyond the boundaries of this drop ("human world"), we are faced with phenomena that contradict the classical (and, in fact, everyday) worldview. It is bad practice to simply dismiss the paradoxical in the data of specific sciences.

But only through this so-called everyday world outlook a person cannot notice the facts of being. A new level of knowledge may also require its own new logic, which will systematize it, but the fact of the matter is that this new logic does not exist, and the explanation is given at the level of some miracle.

The scientific picture of the world acts as a theoretical view of the world. It synthesizes various scientific knowledge. It possesses clarity, accessibility in understanding, and is characterized by a combination of abstract and theoretical knowledge and images. The scientific picture of the world and its essence is determined by the basic categories: matter, motion, space, time, development, and so on.

These basic concepts are philosophical categories. They have been considered by philosophers for many years and are among the "eternal problems." However, these concepts are included in the scientific picture of the world not in a philosophical definition, but in a natural science. Therefore, the scientific picture of the world is a synthesis of scientific and philosophical concepts in the form of a scientific worldview.

Excerpt from the text

What is the scientific picture of the world? To answer this question, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of the terms "world" and "picture of the world". The world is the totality of all forms of existence of matter; The universe in all its diversity. The world as a developing reality means much more than a person imagines at a certain stage of socio-historical development. The picture of the world is a holistic image of the world that has a historically determined character; is formed in society within the framework of the initial ideological attitudes. The picture of the world determines a specific way of perceiving the world, since it is a necessary moment in a person's life. In modern science, the understanding of the picture of the world takes place on the basis of the study of folklore and myths with the help of culturological, linguistic and semiotic analysis of collective consciousness. By the picture of the world, most often they mean the scientific picture of the world, which contains a system of general principles, concepts, laws and visual representations that determines the style of scientific thinking at this stage in the development of science and human culture.

The concept of "scientific picture of the world" in philosophy appeared at the end

1st century, but a more in-depth analysis of its content began to be carried out from the 60s

2nd century. There are many definitions of the scientific picture of the world, it is still impossible to give an unambiguous interpretation of this concept, most likely due to the fact that it is somewhat vague and occupies an intermediate position between philosophical and natural science.

People have always tried to make the world in which they live understandable for themselves. They need this in order to feel safe and comfortable in their own environment, to be able to foresee the onset of various events in order to use the favorable ones and avoid the unfavorable, or minimize their negative consequences. Cognition of the world objectively required an understanding of the place of man in it, a special attitude of people to everything that happens in accordance with their goals, needs and interests, one or another understanding of the meaning of life. Thus, a person has a need to create an integral picture of the external world, making this world understandable and explainable. At the same time, in mature societies, it was built on the basis of philosophical, natural science and religious knowledge and ideas about the world around it, and was fixed in various kinds of theories.

This or that picture of the world is one of the elements of the worldview, contributes to the development of a more or less integral understanding of the world by people and themselves.

A worldview is a set of views, assessments, norms, attitudes, principles that determine the most general vision and understanding of the world, a person's place in it, expressed in a life position, behavior programs and people's actions. In the worldview, the cognitive, value and behavioral subsystems of the subject in their interconnection are presented in a generalized form.

Let's highlight the most important elements in the structure of the worldview.

1. A special place in the worldview is occupied by knowledge and it is generalized knowledge - everyday or practical, as well as theoretical. In this regard, the basis of the worldview is always one or another picture of the world: either everyday-practical, or formed on the basis of theory.

2. Knowledge never fills the entire field of the worldview. Therefore, in addition to knowledge about the world, the worldview also comprehends the way and content of human life, ideals, certain systems of values \u200b\u200bare expressed (about good and evil, man and society, state and politics, etc.), certain ways of life are approved (condemned), behavior and communication.

3. An important element of the worldview is the norms and principles of life. They allow a person to value orientate himself in the material and spiritual culture of society, to realize the meaning of life and choose the path of life.

4. The worldview of the individual and the public worldview contain not only an already rethought body of knowledge closely associated with feelings, will, norms, principles and values, with differentiation into good and bad, necessary or unnecessary, valuable, less valuable or not at all valuable, but also, most importantly, the position of the subject.

Being included in the worldview, knowledge, values, action programs and other components of it acquire a new status. They absorb the attitude, the position of the bearer of the worldview, are colored with emotions and feelings, are combined with the will to act, correlate with apathy or neutrality, with inspiration or tragedy.

The intellectual and emotional experience of people is presented in different ways of the world. The emotional and psychological side of the worldview at the level of moods and feelings is the perception of the world. The experience of forming cognitive images of the world with the use of sensations, perceptions and ideas is referred to as world perception. The cognitive and intellectual side of the worldview is the worldview.

Worldview and worldview are related as beliefs and knowledge. The basis of any worldview is this or that knowledge that constitutes a particular picture of the world. Theoretical, as well as everyday knowledge of the picture of the world in the worldview is always emotionally "colored", rethought, classified.

The picture of the world is a body of knowledge that gives an integral understanding (scientific, simply theoretical or ordinary) of the complex processes that take place in nature and society, in the person himself.

Two main components can be distinguished in the structure of the picture of the world: conceptual (conceptual) and sensory-figurative (everyday-practical). The conceptual component is represented by knowledge, expressed concepts and categories, laws and principles, and the sensory component is represented by a set everyday knowledge, visual representations of the world, experience.

The first pictures of the world were formed spontaneously. Attempts of purposeful systematization of knowledge took place already in the era of antiquity. They had a pronounced naturalistic character, but reflected the inner need of a person to know the whole world and himself, his place and attitude to the world. From the very beginning, the picture of the world was organically intertwined with the worldview of a person, was dominant in its content.

The concept of "picture of the world" means, as it were, a visible portrait of the universe, a figurative-conceptual copy of the universe. In the public consciousness, historically, various pictures of the world are formed and gradually change, which more or less fully explain reality, contain a different ratio of the subjective and objective.

Pictures of the world that give a person a certain place in the Universe and thereby help him navigate in being, grow out of everyday life or in the course of special theoretical activities of human communities. According to A. Einstein, a person strives in some adequate way to create a simple and clear picture of the world; and this is not only in order to overcome the world in which he lives, but also in order to, to a certain extent, try to replace this world with the picture he created.

Man, building this or that picture of the world, relies primarily on everyday practical, as well as on theoretical knowledge.

The everyday-practical picture of the world has its own characteristics.

First, the content of the everyday picture of the world is knowledge that arises and exists on the basis of sensory reflection of the everyday, practical life of people, their immediate immediate interests.

Secondly, the knowledge that forms the basis of the life-practical picture of the world is distinguished by an insignificant depth of reflection of the daily life of people, the lack of consistency. They are heterogeneous in the nature of knowledge, the level of awareness, inclusion in the culture of the subject, in terms of reflection of national, religious and other types of social relations. Knowledge at this level is quite contradictory in terms of the degree of accuracy, spheres of life, orientation, relevance, in relation to beliefs. They contain folk wisdom and knowledge of everyday traditions, norms of universal human, ethnic or group significance. Progressive and conservative elements can simultaneously find a place in it: philistine judgments, ignorant opinions, prejudices, etc.

Thirdly, a person, building an everyday-practical picture of the world, locks it into his own everyday-practical world and therefore objectively does not include (does not reflect) the extrahuman cosmos in which the Earth is located. Outer space is as important here as it is practically useful.

Fourthly, the everyday picture of the world always has its own framework for the everyday vision of reality. It is oriented towards the current moment and a little towards the future, towards that near future, without taking care of the rotor it is impossible to live. Therefore, many theoretical discoveries and inventions quickly fit into the everyday life of a person, become something “familiar”, familiar and practically useful to him.

Fifth, the everyday picture of the world has fewer typical features that are characteristic of many people. It is more individualized, its own for each person or social group.

We can only talk about some of the general features inherent in the everyday vision of the world by each of us.

The theoretical picture of the world also has features that distinguish it from the everyday-practical picture of the world.

1. The theoretical picture of the world is characterized, first of all, by a higher quality of knowledge that reflects the inner, essential in things, phenomena and processes of being, of which the person himself is an element.

2. This knowledge has an abstract logical character, it is systemic and conceptual in nature.

3. The theoretical picture of the world does not have a rigid framework for seeing reality. It is focused not only on the past and present, but to a greater extent on the future. The dynamically developing nature of theoretical knowledge indicates that the possibilities of this picture of the world are practically unlimited.

4. The construction of a theoretical picture in the consciousness and worldview of a particular subject necessarily presupposes that he has special training (training).

Thus, everyday practical and theoretical knowledge is not reducible to each other, not interchangeable when constructing a picture of the world, but are equally necessary and complementary to each other. In the construction of this or that picture of the world, they play a different dominant role. Taken in unity, they are able to complete the construction of an integral picture of the world.

Distinguish between philosophical, natural science and religious pictures of the world. Let's consider their features.

The philosophical picture of the world is a generalized, expressed by philosophical concepts and judgments, a theoretical model of being in its correlation with human life, conscious social activity, and corresponding to a certain stage of historical development.

The following types of knowledge can be distinguished as the main structural elements of the philosophical picture of the world: about nature, about society, about knowledge, about a person.

Many philosophers of the past paid attention to knowledge about nature in their works (Democritus, Lucretius, G. Bruno, D. Diderot, P. Golbach, F. Engels, A.I. Herzen, N.F. Fedorov, V.I. etc.).

Gradually, issues of public life of people, economic, political, legal and other relations entered the sphere of philosophy and became a constant subject of its interest. The answers to them are reflected in the titles of many works (for example: Plato - "On the State", "Laws"; Aristotle - "Politics"; T. Hobbes - "On the Citizen", "Leviathan"; J. Locke - "Two Treatises on public administration "; C. Montesquieu -" On the Spirit of Laws "; G. Hegel -" Philosophy of Law "; F. Engels -" The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State ", etc.). Like natural philosophers, forerunners of modern natural science, socio-philosophical thought paved the way for specific socio-political knowledge and disciplines (civil history, jurisprudence, and others).

It should be noted that the subject of philosophical development was the person himself, as well as morality, law, religion, art and other manifestations of human abilities and relationships. In philosophical thought, this issue is reflected in a number of philosophical works (for example: Aristotle - "On the Soul", "Ethics", "Rhetoric"; Avicenna - "The Book of Knowledge"; R. Descartes "Rules for the Guidance of the Mind", "Discourse on method "; B. Spinoza -" Treatise on the improvement of the mind "," Ethics "; T. Hobbes -" On man "; J. Locke -" Experience of human mind"; K. Helvetius - "About the mind", "About the man"; G. Hegel - "Philosophy of Religion", "Philosophy of Morality", etc.).

Within the framework of the philosophical vision of the world, two models of being were formed:

a) a non-religious philosophical picture of the world, formed on the basis of generalization of data from natural and social sciences, comprehending high life;

b) the religious-philosophical picture of the world as a system of dogmatic-theoretical views on the world, in which the earthly and the sacred are mixed, a doubling of the world occurs, where faith is considered higher than the truths of reason.

A number of provisions should be highlighted that indicate the unity of these pictures of the world.

1. These pictures of the world claim to be an adequate theoretical reflection of the world with the help of fundamental philosophical concepts such as being, matter, spirit, consciousness and others.

2. The knowledge that forms the basis of these pictures of the world form the foundations of the worldview of the corresponding type (non-religious-philosophical and philosophical-religious).

3. The knowledge that forms the basis of these pictures of the world is in many ways pluralistic. They are ambiguous in their content, they can be developed in a variety of directions.

First, the philosophical picture of the world is built on the basis of knowledge about the natural, social world and the world of man himself. They are supplemented by theoretical generalizations of specific sciences. Philosophy builds a universal theoretical picture of the world not instead of specific sciences, but together with sciences. Philosophical knowledge is part of the scientific sphere of knowledge, at least part of its content, and in this respect philosophy is a science, a kind of scientific knowledge.

Second, philosophical knowledge as knowledge special kind, has always performed the important task of forming the basis of the worldview, since the starting point of any worldview is precisely such rethought and general essential knowledge associated with the fundamental interests of people and society. Since ancient times, in the bosom of philosophical knowledge, categories have crystallized as the leading logical forms of thinking and value orientations that form the core and frame of the worldview: being, matter, space, time, movement, development, freedom, etc. On their basis, worldview theoretical systems were built, expressing the conceptual understanding of culture, nature (space), society and man. The philosophical picture of the world is characterized by the unity of cosmocentrism, anthropocentrism and sociocentrism.

Thirdly, philosophical ideas are not static. This is a developing system of knowledge, which is being enriched with more and more new content, new discoveries in philosophy itself and other sciences. At the same time, the continuity of cognition is preserved due to the fact that the new knowledge does not reject, but dialectically “removes”, overcomes its previous level.

Fourthly, the philosophical picture of the world is also characterized by the fact that with all the variety of different philosophical directions and schools, surrounding a person the world is viewed as an integral world of complex interconnections and interdependencies, contradictions, qualitative changes and development, which ultimately corresponds to the content and spirit of scientific knowledge.

The philosophical worldview expresses the intellectual aspiration of mankind not only to accumulate a mass of knowledge, but to understand, comprehend the world as a single and holistic at its core, in which the objective and subjective, being and consciousness, material and spiritual, are closely intertwined.

The natural-scientific picture of the world is a set of knowledge existing in the forms of concepts, principles and laws, giving a holistic understanding of the material world as a moving and developing nature, explaining the origin of life and man. It includes the most fundamental knowledge about nature, verified and confirmed by experimental data.

The main elements of the general scientific picture of the world: scientific knowledge about nature; scientific knowledge about society; scientific knowledge about man and his thinking.

The history of the development of natural sciences testifies to the fact that in its knowledge of nature, mankind has passed three main stages and enters the fourth.

At the first stage (until the 15th century), general syncretic (undifferentiated) ideas about the surrounding world as a whole were formed. A special area of \u200b\u200bknowledge appeared - natural philosophy (philosophy of nature), which absorbed the first knowledge of physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, navigation, astronomy, medicine, etc.

The second stage began in the 15th – 16th centuries. Analytics came to the fore - the mental dismemberment of being and the isolation of particulars, their study. It led to the emergence of independent concrete sciences about nature: physics, chemistry, biology, mechanics, as well as a number of other natural sciences.

The third stage in the development of natural science dates back to the 17th century. In modern times, the transition from the separate cognition of the "elements" of inanimate nature, plants and animals to the creation of an integral picture of nature on the basis of previously known particulars and the acquisition of new knowledge began to take place. The synthetic stage of its study has come.

From the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries, natural science entered the fourth, technogenic stage. The use of diverse technology for the study of nature, its transformation and use in the interests of man has become the main, dominant.

The main features of the modern natural science picture of the world:

1. It is built on the knowledge of objects that exist and develop independently, according to their own laws. Natural sciences want to know the world “as it is” and therefore their object is material reality, its types and forms - space, its micro-, macro- and megaworlds, inanimate and animate nature, matter and physical fields.

2. Natural sciences seek to reflect and explain nature in strict terms, mathematical and other calculus. The laws, principles and categories of these sciences are a powerful tool for further knowledge and transformation natural phenomena and processes.

3. Natural science knowledge is a dynamically developing and contradictory system that is constantly evolving. So, in the light of new discoveries in natural science, our knowledge of the two main forms of existence of matter has significantly expanded: matter and physical fields, matter and antimatter, about other ways of existence of nature.

4. Natural science picture of the world does not include religious explanations of nature. The image of the world (space) appears as a unity of inanimate and living nature, which have their own specific laws, as well as obeying more general laws.

Noting the role of this picture of the world in the worldview, one should pay attention to the following:

- firstly, an abundance of worldview problems (problems of the fundamental principle of the world, its infinity or finiteness; movement or rest; problems of subject-object relations in cognition of the microcosm, etc.) are initially rooted in natural science knowledge. They are essentially the source of the worldview;

- secondly, natural science knowledge is rethought in the worldview of the individual and society in order to form a holistic understanding of the material world and the place of man in it. Thinking about space and the problems of the sciences about nature, a person inevitably and objectively comes to a certain worldview position. For example, the material world is eternal and endless, no one created it; or - the material world is finite, historically transient, chaotic.

For many people, the religious worldview acts as a kind of alternative in relation to the non-religious philosophical and natural-scientific picture of the world. At the same time, from the point of view of faith, it can be difficult to separate the religious worldview and the religious picture of the world.

The religious picture of the world does not exist as an integral system of knowledge, as there are tens and hundreds of different religions and confessions. Each religion has its own picture of the world, based on the symbols of faith, religious dogma and cults. But the general position in all religious pictures of the world is that they are based not on the totality of true knowledge, but on knowledge-delusions and religious faith.

It is possible to name some of the features of the generalized modern religious picture of the world in relation to the main world religions: Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.

1. Religious knowledge is knowledge - belief or knowledge-delusion that there is a supernatural. If you treat him with respect, honor him, then a person can receive benefits and mercies. The central point of any religious picture of the world is the supernatural symbol of God (gods). God appears as the "true" reality and source of benefits for man.

In religious pictures of the world, God is the eternal and non-developing absolute of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. He rules over the whole world. However, in different religions this power can be either unlimited or limited by anything. Gods in Christianity and Islam possess absolute omnipotence and immortality. In Buddhism, Buddha is not only not the creator of the world, but also not a ruler. He preaches divine truth (of faith). According to many gods, Buddhism represents paganism.

2. In the doctrine of the world as the second after the god of reality, an important place in various religions is occupied by the question of its creation and structure. Religious supporters believe that the material was created by God, and the world exists as this-worldly empirical, in which a person temporarily lives, and the other world, where the souls of people eternally live. The other world is divided in some religions into three levels of existence: the world of the gods, the world of heaven and the world of hell.

The sky as the abode of the gods, for example, in Buddhism and Christianity, is very complex. Christianity builds its own hierarchy of the upper world, which includes hosts of angels (messengers of the gods) of various ranks. Three hierarchies of angels are recognized, each of which has three "orders". Thus, the first hierarchy of angels consists of three "ranks" - seraphim, cherubim and thrones.

Part of the sacred (sacred) space is also present in the earthly world. This is the space of the temples, which becomes especially close to God during services.

3. Important place in religious pictures of the world, they are occupied with ideas of time, which are interpreted ambiguously in different confessions.

For Christianity, social time is linear. The history of people is a path that has its divine beginning, and then - a life "in sin" and prayers to God for salvation, then - the end of the world and the rebirth of mankind as a result of the second, saving coming of Christ. History is not cyclical, not meaningless, it follows in a certain direction, and this direction is predetermined by God.

Buddhism operates with periods of "cosmic time", which are called "kalpa". Each kalpa lasts 4 billion 320 million years, after which the Universe "burns out". Every time the accumulated sins of people become the cause of the destruction of the world.

Many religions have "fateful" days and hours that find expression in religious holidaysreproducing sacred events. Believers act, in this case, as it is considered, personally involved in a great and wonderful event, to God himself.

4. All confessions consider the existence of a person who is turned to God, but define it in different ways. Buddhism sees human existence as an extremely tragic fate, filled with suffering. Christianity prioritizes human sinfulness and the importance of redemption before God. Islam requires unquestioning obedience to the will of Allah already during earthly life. In religious explanations, man belongs to the lower levels of the world created by God. It is subject to the law of karma - the relationship of causes and effects (Buddhism), divine predestination (Christianity), the will of Allah (Islam). At the time of death human form disintegrates into body and soul. The body dies, but by the nature of its earthly life it will determine the place and role of the soul in underworld... Since earthly life in Buddhism is suffering, the highest goal for a person is “to stop the wheel of samsara,” to end the chain of suffering and rebirth. Buddhism orients a person to get rid of passions, if you follow the "middle" eightfold path. It means the transition from life in the midst of suffering to the state of nirvana - eternal inner peace, abstracted from earthly life. Christianity considers the earthly existence of man, created by God in his image and likeness, sinful due to non-observance of divine commandments. The precious gift of God - life - a person all the time uses for other purposes: to satisfy carnal desires, thirst for power, self-affirmation. Therefore, all the people ahead is waiting last judgment for sins. God will determine the fate of everyone: some will gain eternal bliss, others - eternal torment. Anyone who wants to receive immortality in paradise must strictly follow all the moral teachings of the Christian church, firmly believe in the basic principles of Christianity, pray to Christ, lead a righteous and virtuous life, not succumbing to the temptations of the flesh and pride.

The content of the religious concepts of the world is the basis of the ordinary or theoretical (theological-dogmatic) worldview. Knowledge about the supernatural in religious pictures of the world is empirically and scientifically theoretically unprovable and irrefutable. These are knowledge-illusions, knowledge-delusion, knowledge-faith. They can tolerantly exist with everyday and scientific-theoretical secular knowledge, or they can conflict, confront them.

The considered pictures of the world have common features: first, they are based on generalized knowledge about being, albeit of a different nature; secondly, building a visible portrait of the universe, its figurative-conceptual copy, all the pictures of the world cannot stand outside their framework of the person himself. He finds himself inside her. The problems of the world and the problems of man himself are always closely intertwined.

The significant differences between these pictures of the world include:

1. Each of the pictures of the world has a concrete historical character. It is always historically determined by the time of appearance (design), by its unique ideas that characterize the level of knowledge and development of the world by man. So, the philosophical picture of the world, formed in the era of antiquity, differs significantly from the modern philosophical picture of the world.

2. An important point that makes the picture of the world fundamentally different is the nature of knowledge itself. Thus, philosophical knowledge has a universal and general essential character. Natural science knowledge is predominantly of a specific-particular, subject-material nature and meets modern criteria of scientific character; it is experimentally verifiable, aimed at reproducing essence, objectivity, and is used to reproduce material and spiritual-secular culture. Religious knowledge is characterized by belief in the supernatural, supernatural, secret, a certain dogma and symbolism. Religious knowledge reproduces the corresponding aspect in the spirituality of a person and society.

3. These pictures of the world are built (described) using their categorical apparatus. So, the terminology of natural-scientific reflection of reality is not suitable for describing it from the point of view of religion. Everyday speech, although included in any descriptions, nevertheless acquires specificity when used in natural sciences, philosophy or theology. The perspective of the constructed model of the world requires an appropriate conceptual apparatus, as well as a set of judgments, with the help of which it can be described and available to many people.

4. The difference between the considered pictures of the world is also manifested in the degree of their completeness. If philosophical and natural-science knowledge is developing systems, then the same cannot be said about religious knowledge. The fundamental views and beliefs that form the basis of the religious picture of the world remain largely unchanged. Church representatives still consider their main task to remind humanity that there are higher and eternal divine truths above it.

Modern concepts of being, material and ideal, the content of the main pictures of the world are the result of a long and contradictory knowledge of the world around people and themselves. Gradually, the problems of the cognitive process were isolated, the possibilities and limits of comprehension of being, the peculiarities of cognition of nature, man and society were substantiated.

List of sources used

1. Spirkin A.G. Philosophy / Spirkin A.G. 2nd ed. - M .: Gardariki, 2006 .-- 736 s

2. Kaverin B.I., Demidov I.V. Philosophy: Textbook. / Under. ed. Doctor of Philosophy, prof. B.I. Kaverina - M .: Jurisprudence, 2001 .-- 272 p.

3. Alekseev P.V. Philosophy / Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. 3rd ed., Rev. and add. - M .: TK Welby, Prospect, 2005 .-- 608 p.

4. Demidov, A.B. Philosophy and methodology of science: a course of lectures / A.B. Demidov., 2009 - 102 p.

Towards modern science. Scientific picture of the world

Worldview and natural science knowledge

Prudnikov V.N., Nedelko V.I., Khundzhua A.G.

Worldview and natural science

"It is incomprehensible that God exists, incomprehensible that he does not exist; that we have a soul, that it does not exist; that the world was created, that it is not made by hands ..."

Blaise Pascal.

The main questions for a person about the purpose and meaning of life are closely related to his worldview. A worldview is defined as a system of generalized views on the objective world and a person's place in it, on the attitude of people to the surrounding reality and to themselves, as well as their beliefs, ideals, principles of knowledge and activity due to these views.

Despite the fact that a person's worldview is purely individual and it is hardly possible to find two people with identical views on all aspects of life, in the main it all comes down to two types of worldviews: theistic and atheistic. And this division is based on faith in God or on faith in his absence. The choice of a person's theological system (including atheism) is laid in the first years of life, usually in a family, long before the beginning of his natural science education. Changes in this basis of the worldview happen rarely, and if they do, it is not under the yoke " scientific evidence", But rather as a result of life upheavals.

In the same phenomena, people, depending on their worldview, can see different essences, as for the interpretation of scientific data, for example, attitudes towards scientific hypotheses. Differences in the solution of the main worldview issues (about God, the Universe as a whole, planet Earth and life on it) within the framework of the two worldviews can be easily seen in the atheistic and theistic formulations of the anthropic principle, which is worth dwelling on in more detail.

Anthropic principle

We live on the third of the nine planets, rotating in an almost circular orbit around our star, the Sun, at a distance of ~ 150x106 km from it. Of the planets of the solar system, Pluto is the most distant from the Sun - the radius of its orbit is ~ 6x109 km. The closest star to the Sun, Alpha Centauri, is located at a distance of 4 light years (a light year - the distance that light travels in one year is 9.5x1012 km). About 50 more nearby stars are located within a radius of ~ 17 light years. The Sun and other ~ 1011 stars form a Galaxy - the Milky Way. The edge of the observable universe is approximately 109 light years away.

Such numbers boggle the imagination, and the question of our place in this World involuntarily arises. Is the universe really our home or did we come here by coincidence? When we see how many chances work for us, then there is a certainty that humanity itself is not accidental. Our presence is predetermined right here on Earth.

Let us consider in more detail what exactly causes amazement in the structure of the Universe, the Solar system, the Earth's biosphere, and then it is up to you to decide whether it all happened by accident and organized itself, or is based on the intelligent design of the Creator.

The ranges of science are enormous - cosmology, which operates with extremely large distances and magnitudes, and the physics of elementary particles at the level of ultra-small masses and dimensions, reveal the amazing structure of the Universe. Science says that the world in which we live, what we see around and what surrounds us - everything that exists, is determined by three types of interactions: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak (the last two determine the laws of nuclear physics). These interactions determine the laws of micro- and macrocosms: from nuclear reactions and the structure of the atom to the structure of stars and galaxies. The intensity of these interactions is determined by the so-called coupling constants, or coupling constants, sometimes the term world constants is used. Theoretical physicists analyzed the possible consequences of changing the relationship between the coupling constants: it turned out that almost any change in the existing relationship destroys our world, and life on Earth becomes impossible. The universe is so fragile that small changes in the coupling constants have catastrophic consequences.

Nuclear interaction determines the stability of nuclei and processes in the interior of stars and the Sun. If it is 2% weaker and there will be no stable bonds between neutrons and protons, i.e. no nuclei, no atoms, etc. If it is 0.3% stronger, then heavy metals will prevail instead of the light elements hydrogen and helium (the two main elements in the Universe).

The gravitational interaction determines the motion of the planets in the solar system, the structure and, as a consequence, the temperature of the stars. The force of gravity pulling us to the Earth is of a gravitational nature.

Electromagnetic interaction carries out the bond between electrons and nuclei in atoms and the bond between atoms in molecules and crystals. The forces of friction and elasticity are of an electromagnetic nature.

Weak interaction - the rate of radioactive decay, if it were a little less - there would be no neutrons in the Universe, and it would consist exclusively of hydrogen, because the nuclei of all other elements contain neutrons.

The ratio between the constants of nuclear and electromagnetic interactions cannot differ by more than one billionth part - otherwise, stars cannot form.

The constants of the electromagnetic and gravitational interactions are no less precisely matched. If their attitude was different, and if it was deviated in one direction, only small stars would exist, and only large stars in the other.

Life on Earth is unthinkable without water, and it turns out that water, a compound of H2O, has a number of unique, including anomalous, properties caused by the influence of hydrogen bonds, without which life on Earth would be impossible. From the point of view of chemistry, water is molecular oxygen hydride (an element of group VI of the periodic system). Hydrides of other elements of group VI sulfur, selenium and tellurium, Н2S, Н2Se, Н2Te, unlike water, are poisonous and their melting and boiling points lie in the region of negative temperatures, in the range from –10 to –100 ° С.

Water is one of the few substances that expands when freezing; as a result, ice floats on the water, protecting the reservoirs from freezing from above in winter. Another anomalous property that also protects water bodies from freezing is that when the temperature rises from 0 to 4 ° C, the density of water increases (usually, the density increases with increasing temperature). It is thanks to the indicated anomalies, as well as the huge heat capacity of water in reservoirs under the ice, that life is preserved.

It should not be forgotten that water is a universal solvent, due to which chemical reactions can take place in cells.

The optical properties of water vapor are adapted to the transmission of solar radiation, the maximum of which lies in the visible spectrum, and absorption in the earth's atmosphere of the return flow of the Earth's radiation (maximum in the infrared region). As a result, the temperature regime of the Earth differs significantly from the regime of other planets of the solar system with huge daily temperature fluctuations.

The preservation of life on Earth is unthinkable without its anomalously large magnetic field, ionosphere, and ozone layer.

This list, which concerns literally all aspects of human life, can be continued and continued, but the main conclusion can be drawn from the data presented. Let us formulate it as follows: the harmony of the world and its fitness for human existence in it can be traced at all levels: from the characteristics of elementary particles, atomic nuclei and atoms to the speed of rotation of the Earth around its axis, the structure of the solar system and the expansion of the universe.

These thoughts are reflected in the anthropic principle, which says: the Universe is like that, because otherwise life is impossible. And further, the formulations of the anthropic principle differ depending on the worldview, since the anthropic principle implies either the reality of God and the uniqueness of our World, or the denial of God and the plurality of worlds; blind chance, suggesting a myriad of worlds, or the plan of the Creator and the only world of man - the Earth. That is why there are two formulations of the anthropic principle, which read:

The Creator of the World has defined the fundamental laws of physics so that human life is possible on Earth;

There are many worlds, with a chaotic spread of parameters, and most of them are uninhabited. Conditions compatible with life were accidentally created on Earth.

It is clear that the chasm separates these formulations of the anthropic principle, and it is inherent in the worldview. The answers to all the most important questions of mankind are also determined by its worldview. Similarly, the answers to the question: what lies behind the observed Universe will also be alternative.

The Christian worldview asserts: behind matter there is a creative Mind, God, which is not a component of the Universe, but determines its laws and the path of development.

Atheistic worldview: there is nothing but moving matter, it is blind and devoid of purpose, while it has the ability to self-organization and development, also not subordinate to any goal. The variety of nature and the world is the result of random processes of development of matter.

Let's ask a more specific question, how did our world come about? And again we get two mutually exclusive answers:

Christian worldview: the universe, the solar system, the earth were created in such a way in order to provide opportunities for life on earth.

Atheistic worldview: matter itself arose as a result of the Big Bang and over time formed the Solar system with a system of planets, on one of which, in an incomprehensible way (scientifically inexplicable and not reproducible), as a result of spontaneous generation, organic life appeared; as a result of evolution through mutations and natural selection (these mechanisms are also not controlled by anyone and have no ultimate goal), the current variety of forms of living nature arose.

Which system of answers to adhere to is a matter of the free choice of each person and it would not be worth talking about this so much if the atheistic worldview were not persistently imposed on us by the ideologies of communism and globalism. Unfortunately, the atheistic worldview views cited here are declared part of the scientific picture of the world, although the postulates underlying them constitute an object of faith, i.e. have little to do with science and should be taken out of its framework.

Scientific picture of the world

At all times, the awareness of the existence of laws in nature and the possibility of its rational cognition led scientists and philosophers to attempts to paint the scientific picture of the world. At the same time, people have always had enough available scientific knowledge to explain everything in the world, which constitutes the core of the scientific picture of the world - a set of hypotheses and theories that are most stable in time, which are now the principles of thermodynamics, conservation laws, constancy of fundamental physical quantities. The replacement of the core of the scientific picture of the world is associated with a revolution in science, due to which the scientific picture of the world is stable, and theories that undermine it meet fierce resistance, both from the scientific community and from near-scientific and far from science strata of society. For the latter, the dominant picture of the world manages to become an object of faith.

The scientific picture of the world is a model formed as a result of unlimited extrapolation of specific limited scientific knowledge beyond the limits of observations and experiments that are possible at a given time. The spontaneously scientific picture of the world extends to all conceivable reality. This has been the case at all times, and Newton was no exception, who created the first scientific picture of the world.

Newton, as a theologian and thinker of the largest scale, could not help but think about the problems related to the structure of the universe. At the same time, he, following his rules, applied the method of induction by analyzing the consequences of established laws. So, analyzing the consequences of the law of universal gravitation, as applied to the entire universe (although at that time the law was confirmed by the motion of the planets only within the solar system), Newton came to the conclusion that the universe is infinite in space. The Universe should be infinite, since only in this case there could exist equal centers of gravity and a multitude of space objects in it. In a finite universe, all these objects would sooner or later merge into a single body (center of the world). Therefore, the foundation of Newton's model of the Universe and many subsequent models (up to the creation of the general theory of relativity at the beginning of the 20th century) was the idea of \u200b\u200ban infinite space and an infinite number of space objects. These objects are attracted to each other by the force of universal gravity, which determines the nature of their movement.

The core of Newton's mechanistic picture of the world was the idea of \u200b\u200bthe material unity of the heavenly and the earthly, that is, the world once created by God and existing according to the natural laws of nature. Mechanical motion was seen as the basis of all phenomena and processes, and gravity was considered the most universal and main force in the Cosmos. The physical picture of the world was drawn in the categories of absolute space and absolute time, existing independently of matter. The creation of matter itself was presented as a kind of distant overture to an endless spectacle, the action of which unfolds according to the natural laws of nature under the influence of gravitational forces.

Newton was also worried about the origin of the universe. He understood that limiting himself only to mechanical forces, he could not explain not only the origin of the universe, but also the origin of the solar system. Therefore, in matters of origin, Newton resorted to more powerful than gravity, organizing force, which he thought of God the Creator. The "divine hand" gave the planets the necessary initial impulse for their orbital motion, thanks to which they did not fall on the Sun. Then the movement of the planets was explained by a natural physical reason - the law of universal gravitation. However, there was no explanation for the stable nature of the planetary motion. Moreover, the mutual attraction of the planets should inevitably cause disturbances in their motion and as a result of deviations from strictly elliptical trajectories. These deviations could be of a secular nature, increasing with time, and Newton concluded that it was necessary from time to time to correct, through divine intervention, the mechanism of planetary motion, shaken by mutual perturbations, i.e. wind up the "world clock," as Leibniz aptly put it.

Phenomenological, but based on strict quantitative laws, Newton's physics determined the main features of a new, cosmophysical picture of the world, which for two centuries became a guiding and controlling factor in the development of natural science. But the ideological ideas of Newton did not in all inspire the eighteenth century, the century of enlightenment, the century of reviving materialistic teachings, which follows the century of Newton. It took half a century of development not of science, but mainly of an atheistic worldview, for the idea of \u200b\u200ba divine "initial impetus" to be categorically rejected. Its place in natural science was taken by the forgotten idea of \u200b\u200bthe natural evolution of matter in the Cosmos, the driving force of which this time was gravity.

Newton's discovery of the basic laws of mechanics gave rise to an opinion about their universalism, and the understanding of these laws, as well as the discovery of new ones, is a guarantee of a complete understanding of nature and society and power over them. In such a world, subject to strict mathematical laws, according to atheists, there was no place for God. Science was called upon to explain the origin of the solar system - the founder of these ideas was the French scientist J. Buffon. According to Buffon, all the planets were formed from a jet of fire-breathing substance, knocked out of the Sun when it collided with a comet (Newton himself pointed out the possibility of such a collision); further, planets, including the Earth, were formed from the fragments of the jet.

The classic of German philosophy, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), went even further, not confining himself to considering the solar system, but directing his thoughts into the vastness of the universe. Putting forward the ideas of the evolution of the Universe, Kant worked out in detail the cosmogony of the solar system, including the origin of the sun, which was later called the "nebular hypothesis". The main drawback of Kant's cosmogony is the assumption about the possibility of a rotational motion of the system as a result of the interaction of its constituent parts.

Many shortcomings of Kant's hypothesis were eliminated by the great French scientist P.S. Laplace (1749-1827). In 1796 Laplace, in his Exposition of the System of the World, suggested that the same gravitational forces that determine the motion of the planets could be considered the cause of the solar system and considered the possibility of its formation from an initially rotating rarefied nebula. Under the influence of gravitational forces, the cooling of the nebula was accompanied by compression, which led to the formation of a star - the Sun in its center - and, at the same time, to the exfoliation of the rings in the equatorial plane, from which the planets and their satellites were ultimately formed. Within a short time, Laplace's hypothesis became popular and seemed to prove the omnipotence of a rational approach to explaining nature. If Kant assigned God in his cosmogony the role of the creator of matter, then the atheist Laplace rejected God altogether. It is known that when Napoleon Bonaparte, who was interested in natural sciences and, especially in mathematics, asked Laplace about the place of God in the system of the world, he arrogantly replied: "Sire, I do not need this hypothesis."

Thus, in less than a hundred years, Newton's scientific picture of the world, of which God the Creator and Provider was an integral part, first lost the Provider, and then, in the Laplace system, the Creator. And they are trying to convince us that this happened under the pressure of scientific facts. But in this case, such a turn would be final and irreversible, however, in later times there were scientists no less large than Laplace, with a significantly larger amount of knowledge, who did not reject God and adhered to christian worldview... And in the 19th and early 20th centuries, such scientists were in the majority. So the Christian worldview was adhered to by Ampere, Becquerel, Volta, Gauss, Dalton, Joule, Kelvin, Coulomb, Charles, Mayer, Maxwell, Ohm, Planck, Faraday. Although Albert Einstein was not a Christian, he was not an atheist either.

Would it be correct to say that the Christian scientists were not convinced by Laplace's hypothesis due to a number of its significant fatal flaws, the most important of which is the discrepancy between the distribution of angular momentum between the Sun and the planets, the reverse rotation of Venus and Uranus? Hardly. Let us ask one more question - how far has science advanced in the knowledge of nature since the time of Laplace? The successes of science in the material sphere are colossal, it is the basis of technical progress that has embraced many sides human activity... Science paints a picture of the world with the colors of many branches of natural science, but it should be recognized that in matters of the origin of the Universe, the Solar system, and the Earth, new hypotheses are more likely the fruit of a sophisticated mind, albeit equipped with the most modern mathematical sophistication, than a reflection of some new discoveries and laws of physics. No wonder Laplace's hypothesis, corrected and modified, for example by O.Yu. Schmidt, and is still in use, although its shortcomings are currently not only not eliminated, but have become even more obvious. The conclusion suggests itself - the basis of the scientific picture of the world is the worldview, which is not limited only by the data of science. That is why atheists and Christians, operating with the same amount of scientific knowledge, manage to draw fundamentally different scientific pictures of the world.

List of references

For the preparation of this work were used materials from the site portal-slovo.ru/

People have always tried to make the world in which they live understandable for themselves. They need this in order to feel safe and comfortable in their own environment, to be able to foresee the onset of various events in order to use the favorable ones and avoid the unfavorable, or minimize their negative consequences. Cognition of the world objectively required an understanding of the place of man in it, a special attitude of people to everything that happens in accordance with their goals, needs and interests, one or another understanding of the meaning of life. Thus, a person has a need to create an integral picture of the external world, making this world understandable and explainable. At the same time, in mature societies, it was built on the basis of philosophical, natural science and religious knowledge and ideas about the world around it, and was fixed in various kinds of theories.

This or that picture of the world is one of the elements of the worldview, contributes to the development of a more or less integral understanding of the world by people and themselves.

A worldview is a set of views, assessments, norms, attitudes, principles that determine the most general vision and understanding of the world, a person's place in it, expressed in a life position, behavior programs and people's actions. In the worldview, the cognitive, value and behavioral subsystems of the subject in their interconnection are presented in a generalized form.

Let's highlight the most important elements in the structure of the worldview.

1. A special place in the worldview is occupied by knowledge and it is generalized knowledge - everyday or practical, as well as theoretical. In this regard, the basis of the worldview is always one or another picture of the world: either everyday-practical, or formed on the basis of theory.

2. Knowledge never fills the entire field of the worldview. Therefore, in addition to knowledge about the world, the worldview also comprehends the way and content of human life, ideals, certain systems of values \u200b\u200bare expressed (about good and evil, man and society, state and politics, etc.), certain ways of life are approved (condemned), behavior and communication.

3. An important element of the worldview is the norms and principles of life. They allow a person to value orientate himself in the material and spiritual culture of society, to realize the meaning of life and choose the path of life.

4. The worldview of the individual and the public worldview contain not only an already rethought body of knowledge closely associated with feelings, will, norms, principles and values, with differentiation into good and bad, necessary or unnecessary, valuable, less valuable or not at all valuable, but also, most importantly, the position of the subject.

Being included in the worldview, knowledge, values, action programs and other components of it acquire a new status. They absorb the attitude, the position of the bearer of the worldview, are colored with emotions and feelings, are combined with the will to act, correlate with apathy or neutrality, with inspiration or tragedy.

The intellectual and emotional experience of people is presented in different ways of the world. The emotional and psychological side of the worldview at the level of moods and feelings is the perception of the world. The experience of forming cognitive images of the world with the use of sensations, perceptions and ideas is referred to as world perception. The cognitive and intellectual side of the worldview is the worldview.

Worldview and worldview are related as beliefs and knowledge. The basis of any worldview is this or that knowledge that constitutes a particular picture of the world. Theoretical, as well as everyday knowledge of the picture of the world in the worldview is always emotionally "colored", rethought, classified.

The picture of the world is a body of knowledge that gives an integral understanding (scientific, simply theoretical or ordinary) of the complex processes that take place in nature and society, in the person himself.

Two main components can be distinguished in the structure of the picture of the world: conceptual (conceptual) and sensory-figurative (everyday-practical). The conceptual component is represented by knowledge, expressed concepts and categories, laws and principles, and the sensory component is represented by a set of everyday knowledge, visual representations of the world, and experience.

The first pictures of the world were formed spontaneously. Attempts of purposeful systematization of knowledge took place already in the era of antiquity. They had a pronounced naturalistic character, but reflected the inner need of a person to know the whole world and himself, his place and attitude to the world. From the very beginning, the picture of the world was organically intertwined with the worldview of a person, was dominant in its content.

The concept of "picture of the world" means, as it were, a visible portrait of the universe, a figurative-conceptual copy of the universe. In the public consciousness, historically, various pictures of the world are formed and gradually change, which more or less fully explain reality, contain a different ratio of the subjective and objective.

Pictures of the world that give a person a certain place in the Universe and thereby help him navigate in being, grow out of everyday life or in the course of special theoretical activities of human communities. According to A. Einstein, a person strives in some adequate way to create a simple and clear picture of the world; and this is not only in order to overcome the world in which he lives, but also in order to, to a certain extent, try to replace this world with the picture he created.

Man, building this or that picture of the world, relies primarily on everyday practical, as well as on theoretical knowledge.

The everyday-practical picture of the world has its own characteristics.

First, the content of the everyday picture of the world is knowledge that arises and exists on the basis of sensory reflection of the everyday, practical life of people, their immediate immediate interests.

Secondly, the knowledge that forms the basis of the life-practical picture of the world is distinguished by an insignificant depth of reflection of the daily life of people, the lack of consistency. They are heterogeneous in the nature of knowledge, the level of awareness, inclusion in the culture of the subject, in terms of reflection of national, religious and other types of social relations. Knowledge at this level is quite contradictory in terms of the degree of accuracy, spheres of life, orientation, relevance, in relation to beliefs. They contain folk wisdom and knowledge of everyday traditions, norms of universal human, ethnic or group significance. Progressive and conservative elements can simultaneously find a place in it: philistine judgments, ignorant opinions, prejudices, etc.

Thirdly, a person, building an everyday-practical picture of the world, locks it into his own everyday-practical world and therefore objectively does not include (does not reflect) the extrahuman cosmos in which the Earth is located. Outer space is as important here as it is practically useful.

Fourthly, the everyday picture of the world always has its own framework for the everyday vision of reality. It is oriented towards the current moment and a little towards the future, towards that near future, without taking care of the rotor it is impossible to live. Therefore, many theoretical discoveries and inventions quickly fit into the everyday life of a person, become something “familiar”, familiar and practically useful to him.

Fifth, the everyday picture of the world has fewer typical features that are characteristic of many people. It is more individualized, its own for each person or social group.

We can only talk about some of the general features inherent in the everyday vision of the world by each of us.

The theoretical picture of the world also has features that distinguish it from the everyday-practical picture of the world.

1. The theoretical picture of the world is characterized, first of all, by a higher quality of knowledge that reflects the inner, essential in things, phenomena and processes of being, of which the person himself is an element.

2. This knowledge has an abstract logical character, it is systemic and conceptual in nature.

3. The theoretical picture of the world does not have a rigid framework for seeing reality. It is focused not only on the past and present, but to a greater extent on the future. The dynamically developing nature of theoretical knowledge indicates that the possibilities of this picture of the world are practically unlimited.

4. The construction of a theoretical picture in the consciousness and worldview of a particular subject necessarily presupposes that he has special training (training).

Thus, everyday practical and theoretical knowledge is not reducible to each other, not interchangeable when constructing a picture of the world, but are equally necessary and complementary to each other. In the construction of this or that picture of the world, they play a different dominant role. Taken in unity, they are able to complete the construction of an integral picture of the world.

Distinguish between philosophical, natural science and religious pictures of the world. Let's consider their features.

The philosophical picture of the world is a generalized, expressed by philosophical concepts and judgments, a theoretical model of being in its correlation with human life, conscious social activity, and corresponding to a certain stage of historical development.

The following types of knowledge can be distinguished as the main structural elements of the philosophical picture of the world: about nature, about society, about knowledge, about a person.

Many philosophers of the past paid attention to knowledge about nature in their works (Democritus, Lucretius, G. Bruno, D. Diderot, P. Golbach, F. Engels, A.I. Herzen, N.F. Fedorov, V.I. etc.).

Gradually, issues of public life of people, economic, political, legal and other relations entered the sphere of philosophy and became a constant subject of its interest. The answers to them are reflected in the titles of many works (for example: Plato - "On the State", "Laws"; Aristotle - "Politics"; T. Hobbes - "On the Citizen", "Leviathan"; J. Locke - "Two Treatises on public administration "; C. Montesquieu -" On the Spirit of Laws "; G. Hegel -" Philosophy of Law "; F. Engels -" The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State ", etc.). Like natural philosophers, forerunners of modern natural science, socio-philosophical thought paved the way for specific socio-political knowledge and disciplines (civil history, jurisprudence, and others).

It should be noted that the subject of philosophical development was the person himself, as well as morality, law, religion, art and other manifestations of human abilities and relationships. In philosophical thought, this issue is reflected in a number of philosophical works (for example: Aristotle - "On the Soul", "Ethics", "Rhetoric"; Avicenna - "The Book of Knowledge"; R. Descartes "Rules for the Guidance of the Mind", "Discourse on method "; B. Spinoza -" Treatise on the Improvement of the Mind "," Ethics "; T. Hobbes -" On Man "; J. Locke -" Experience on the Human Mind "; K. Helvetius -" On the Mind "," On Man "; G. Hegel -" Philosophy of Religion "," Philosophy of Morality ", etc.).

Within the framework of the philosophical vision of the world, two models of being were formed:

a) a non-religious philosophical picture of the world, formed on the basis of generalization of data from natural and social sciences, understanding of secular life;

b) the religious-philosophical picture of the world as a system of dogmatic-theoretical views on the world, in which the earthly and the sacred are mixed, a doubling of the world occurs, where faith is considered higher than the truths of reason.

A number of provisions should be highlighted that indicate the unity of these pictures of the world.

1. These pictures of the world claim to be an adequate theoretical reflection of the world with the help of fundamental philosophical concepts such as being, matter, spirit, consciousness and others.

2. The knowledge that forms the basis of these pictures of the world form the foundations of the worldview of the corresponding type (non-religious-philosophical and philosophical-religious).

3. The knowledge that forms the basis of these pictures of the world is in many ways pluralistic. They are ambiguous in their content, they can be developed in a variety of directions.

First, the philosophical picture of the world is built on the basis of knowledge about the natural, social world and the world of man himself. They are supplemented by theoretical generalizations of specific sciences. Philosophy builds a universal theoretical picture of the world not instead of specific sciences, but together with sciences. Philosophical knowledge is part of the scientific sphere of knowledge, at least part of its content, and in this respect philosophy is a science, a kind of scientific knowledge.

Secondly, philosophical knowledge, as knowledge of a special kind, has always performed the important task of forming the basis of a worldview, since the starting point of any worldview consists precisely in such rethought and general essential knowledge related to the fundamental interests of people and society. Since ancient times, in the bosom of philosophical knowledge, categories have crystallized as the leading logical forms of thinking and value orientations that form the core and frame of the worldview: being, matter, space, time, movement, development, freedom, etc. On their basis, worldview theoretical systems were built, expressing the conceptual understanding of culture, nature (space), society and man. The philosophical picture of the world is characterized by the unity of cosmocentrism, anthropocentrism and sociocentrism.

Third, philosophical ideas are not static. This is a developing system of knowledge, which is being enriched with more and more new content, new discoveries in philosophy itself and other sciences. At the same time, the continuity of cognition is preserved due to the fact that the new knowledge does not reject, but dialectically “removes”, overcomes its previous level.

Fourthly, the philosophical picture of the world is also characterized by the fact that, with all the diversity of various philosophical trends and schools, the world around a person is considered as an integral world of complex interrelationships and interdependencies, contradictions, qualitative changes and development, which ultimately corresponds to the content and spirit of scientific knowledge.

The philosophical worldview expresses the intellectual aspiration of mankind not only to accumulate a mass of knowledge, but to understand, comprehend the world as a single and holistic at its core, in which the objective and subjective, being and consciousness, material and spiritual, are closely intertwined.

The natural-scientific picture of the world is a set of knowledge existing in the forms of concepts, principles and laws, giving a holistic understanding of the material world as a moving and developing nature, explaining the origin of life and man. It includes the most fundamental knowledge about nature, verified and confirmed by experimental data.

The main elements of the general scientific picture of the world: scientific knowledge about nature; scientific knowledge about society; scientific knowledge about man and his thinking.

The history of the development of natural sciences testifies to the fact that in its knowledge of nature, mankind has passed three main stages and enters the fourth.

At the first stage (until the 15th century), general syncretic (undifferentiated) ideas about the surrounding world as a whole were formed. A special area of \u200b\u200bknowledge appeared - natural philosophy (philosophy of nature), which absorbed the first knowledge of physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, navigation, astronomy, medicine, etc.

The second stage began in the 15th – 16th centuries. Analytics came to the fore - the mental dismemberment of being and the isolation of particulars, their study. It led to the emergence of independent concrete sciences about nature: physics, chemistry, biology, mechanics, as well as a number of other natural sciences.

The third stage in the development of natural science dates back to the 17th century. In modern times, the transition from the separate cognition of the "elements" of inanimate nature, plants and animals to the creation of an integral picture of nature on the basis of previously known particulars and the acquisition of new knowledge began to take place. The synthetic stage of its study has come.

From the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries, natural science entered the fourth, technogenic stage. The use of diverse technology for the study of nature, its transformation and use in the interests of man has become the main, dominant.

The main features of the modern natural science picture of the world:

1. It is built on the knowledge of objects that exist and develop independently, according to their own laws. Natural sciences want to know the world “as it is” and therefore their object is material reality, its types and forms - space, its micro-, macro- and megaworlds, inanimate and animate nature, matter and physical fields.

2. Natural sciences seek to reflect and explain nature in strict terms, mathematical and other calculus. The laws, principles and categories of these sciences act as a powerful tool for further knowledge and transformation of natural phenomena and processes.

3. Natural science knowledge is a dynamically developing and contradictory system that is constantly evolving. So, in the light of new discoveries in natural science, our knowledge of the two main forms of existence of matter has significantly expanded: matter and physical fields, matter and antimatter, about other ways of existence of nature.

4. Natural science picture of the world does not include religious explanations of nature. The image of the world (space) appears as a unity of inanimate and living nature, which have their own specific laws, as well as obeying more general laws.

Noting the role of this picture of the world in the worldview, one should pay attention to the following:

- firstly, an abundance of worldview problems (problems of the fundamental principle of the world, its infinity or finiteness; movement or rest; problems of subject-object relations in cognition of the microcosm, etc.) are initially rooted in natural science knowledge. They are essentially the source of the worldview;

- secondly, natural science knowledge is rethought in the worldview of the individual and society in order to form a holistic understanding of the material world and the place of man in it. Thinking about space and the problems of the sciences about nature, a person inevitably and objectively comes to a certain worldview position. For example, the material world is eternal and endless, no one created it; or - the material world is finite, historically transient, chaotic.

For many people, the religious worldview acts as a kind of alternative in relation to the non-religious philosophical and natural-scientific picture of the world. At the same time, from the point of view of faith, it can be difficult to separate the religious worldview and the religious picture of the world.

The religious picture of the world does not exist as an integral system of knowledge, as there are tens and hundreds of different religions and confessions. Each religion has its own picture of the world, based on the symbols of faith, religious dogma and cults. But the general position in all religious pictures of the world is that they are based not on the totality of true knowledge, but on knowledge-delusions and religious faith.

It is possible to name some of the features of the generalized modern religious picture of the world in relation to the main world religions: Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.

1. Religious knowledge is knowledge - belief or knowledge-delusion that there is a supernatural. If you treat him with respect, honor him, then a person can receive benefits and mercies. The central point of any religious picture of the world is the supernatural symbol of God (gods). God appears as the "true" reality and source of benefits for man.

In religious pictures of the world, God is the eternal and non-developing absolute of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. He rules over the whole world. However, in different religions, this power can be both unlimited and limited by something. Gods in Christianity and Islam possess absolute omnipotence and immortality. In Buddhism, Buddha is not only not the creator of the world, but also not a ruler. He preaches divine truth (of faith). According to many gods, Buddhism represents paganism.

2. In the doctrine of the world as the second after the god of reality, an important place in various religions is occupied by the question of its creation and structure. Religious supporters believe that the material was created by God, and the world exists as this-worldly empirical, in which a person temporarily lives, and the other world, where the souls of people eternally live. The other world is divided in some religions into three levels of existence: the world of the gods, the world of heaven and the world of hell.

The sky as the abode of the gods, for example, in Buddhism and Christianity, is very complex. Christianity builds its own hierarchy of the upper world, which includes hosts of angels (messengers of the gods) of various ranks. Three hierarchies of angels are recognized, each of which has three "orders". Thus, the first hierarchy of angels consists of three "ranks" - seraphim, cherubim and thrones.

Part of the sacred (sacred) space is also present in the earthly world. This is the space of the temples, which becomes especially close to God during services.

3. An important place in religious pictures of the world is occupied by ideas about time, which are interpreted ambiguously in different confessions.

For Christianity, social time is linear. The history of people is a path that has its divine beginning, and then - a life "in sin" and prayers to God for salvation, then - the end of the world and the rebirth of mankind as a result of the second, saving coming of Christ. History is not cyclical, not meaningless, it follows in a certain direction, and this direction is predetermined by God.

Buddhism operates with periods of "cosmic time", which are called "kalpa". Each kalpa lasts 4 billion 320 million years, after which the Universe "burns out". Every time the accumulated sins of people become the cause of the destruction of the world.

Many religions have “fateful” days and hours that find expression in religious holidays that reproduce sacred events. Believers act, in this case, as it is considered, personally involved in a great and wonderful event, to God himself.

4. All confessions consider the existence of a person who is turned to God, but define it in different ways. Buddhism sees human existence as an extremely tragic fate, filled with suffering. Christianity prioritizes human sinfulness and the importance of redemption before God. Islam requires unquestioning obedience to the will of Allah already during earthly life. In religious explanations, man belongs to the lower levels of the world created by God. It is subject to the law of karma - the relationship of causes and effects (Buddhism), divine predestination (Christianity), the will of Allah (Islam). At the moment of death, the human form disintegrates into body and soul. The body dies, but by the nature of its earthly life it will determine the place and role of the soul in the afterlife. Since earthly life in Buddhism is suffering, the highest goal for a person is “to stop the wheel of samsara,” to end the chain of suffering and rebirth. Buddhism orients a person to get rid of passions, if you follow the "middle" eightfold path. It means the transition from life in the midst of suffering to the state of nirvana - eternal inner peace, abstracted from earthly life. Christianity considers the earthly existence of man, created by God in his image and likeness, sinful due to non-observance of divine commandments. The precious gift of God - life - a person all the time uses for other purposes: to satisfy carnal desires, thirst for power, self-affirmation. Therefore, a terrible judgment for sins awaits all people ahead. God will determine the fate of everyone: some will gain eternal bliss, others - eternal torment. Anyone who wants to receive immortality in paradise must strictly follow all the moral teachings of the Christian church, firmly believe in the basic principles of Christianity, pray to Christ, lead a righteous and virtuous life, not succumbing to the temptations of the flesh and pride.

The content of the religious concepts of the world is the basis of the ordinary or theoretical (theological-dogmatic) worldview. Knowledge about the supernatural in religious pictures of the world is empirically and scientifically theoretically unprovable and irrefutable. These are knowledge-illusions, knowledge-delusion, knowledge-faith. They can tolerantly exist with everyday and scientific-theoretical secular knowledge, or they can conflict, confront them.

The considered pictures of the world have common features: first, they are based on generalized knowledge about being, albeit of a different nature; secondly, building a visible portrait of the universe, its figurative-conceptual copy, all the pictures of the world cannot stand outside their framework of the person himself. He finds himself inside her. The problems of the world and the problems of man himself are always closely intertwined.

The significant differences between these pictures of the world include:

1. Each of the pictures of the world has a concrete historical character. It is always historically determined by the time of appearance (design), by its unique ideas that characterize the level of knowledge and development of the world by man. So, the philosophical picture of the world, formed in the era of antiquity, differs significantly from the modern philosophical picture of the world.

2. An important point that makes the picture of the world fundamentally different is the nature of knowledge itself. Thus, philosophical knowledge has a universal and general essential character. Natural science knowledge is predominantly of a specific-particular, subject-material nature and meets modern criteria of scientific character; it is experimentally verifiable, aimed at reproducing essence, objectivity, and is used to reproduce material and spiritual-secular culture. Religious knowledge is characterized by belief in the supernatural, supernatural, secret, a certain dogma and symbolism. Religious knowledge reproduces the corresponding aspect in the spirituality of a person and society.

3. These pictures of the world are built (described) using their categorical apparatus. So, the terminology of natural-scientific reflection of reality is not suitable for describing it from the point of view of religion. Everyday speech, although included in any descriptions, nevertheless acquires specificity when used in natural sciences, philosophy or theology. The perspective of the constructed model of the world requires an appropriate conceptual apparatus, as well as a set of judgments, with the help of which it can be described and available to many people.

4. The difference between the considered pictures of the world is also manifested in the degree of their completeness. If philosophical and natural-science knowledge is developing systems, then the same cannot be said about religious knowledge. The fundamental views and beliefs that form the basis of the religious picture of the world remain largely unchanged. Church representatives still consider their main task to remind humanity that there are higher and eternal divine truths above it.

Modern concepts of being, material and ideal, the content of the main pictures of the world are the result of a long and contradictory knowledge of the world around people and themselves. Gradually, the problems of the cognitive process were isolated, the possibilities and limits of comprehension of being, the peculiarities of cognition of nature, man and society were substantiated.

List of sources used

1. Spirkin A.G. Philosophy / Spirkin A.G. 2nd ed. - M .: Gardariki, 2006 .-- 736 s

2. Kaverin B.I., Demidov I.V. Philosophy: Textbook. / Under. ed. Doctor of Philosophy, prof. B.I. Kaverina - M .: Jurisprudence, 2001 .-- 272 p.

3. Alekseev P.V. Philosophy / Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. 3rd ed., Rev. and add. - M .: TK Welby, Prospect, 2005 .-- 608 p.

4. Demidov, A.B. Philosophy and methodology of science: a course of lectures / A.B. Demidov., 2009 - 102 p.