One Answer
Leave a Reply
You must Register - Login to add an answer.
Login – Register
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
In the problems of the New Age, we can conditionally distinguish between a critical and a positive program. The critical program is associated with the need for a radical restructuring of the thinking apparatus. In fact, the scientific revolution would be impossible without a revolution in thinking. To create new ways of thinking, you need to get rid of the old ones. The old methods were set by scholasticism, and therefore scholasticism was replaced. How did scholasticism hinder the development of scientific thinking? Let us recall that the main feature of scholasticism is dogmatism, that is, dogmatism. thinking in search of answers to a question turns to the text, not to experience. Justification is given through a reference to authority, which does not guarantee us the reliability of the result (which is why Pascal says that science should not be based on authority). In addition, theology was based on teleological (goal) justification, and science on deterministic (causal), the idea of a goal located in the object itself does not give anything to scientific research and leads to religion. It is precisely in connection with the restructuring of thinking that skeptical and critical tendencies are widespread in Modern philosophy (the skepticism of Pascal and Descartes, the struggle against Bacon's “idols”).
Within the framework of a positive program, the problem of the scientific method dominates. It should be noted that the question of the method of scientific knowledge in Modern times arises for the first time. Why is this method necessary? It allows us to give knowledge an objective character, i.e. the property of universality and necessity (the basic principles of classical science). Universality indicates the general validity of the result, its independence from the personal characteristics of the subject, and necessity shows that the result is such not by chance, but is obtained in a strict way and can be confirmed as many times as it is required for a reliable conclusion.
In connection with the problem of method in Modern philosophy, two main directions are distinguished: empiricism and rationalism. Empiricism (F. Bacon) considers experience to be the basis of reliable knowledge, while rationalism (Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza) believes that the sources of reliable knowledge are rooted in reason itself.
The next major problem in Modern philosophy is the problem of substance. Substance (Lat. “what lies at the bottom”) is a category of ontology that denotes the primary basis, which does not need anything else for its existence. In philosophy, this problem appeared in antiquity and continued to be relevant until Modern times. In Modern times, the main options for solving this problem are distributed as follows::
dualism (two substances – – R. Descartes;
monism (one substance – – B. Spinoza;
pluralism (multiple substances – – G. Leibniz.
Accordingly, after Modern times, the problem of substance has lost its relevance, has become a fiction.