Truth is the main category of the theory of knowledge. It is the ideal expression of existence in knowledge, because reality exists outside and independently of consciousness, the knowing subject. Truth is the content of knowledge consistent with objective existence. It is the result of the process of knowledge, the perception of knowledge. The truth finds its expression in the form of conscious affirmative judgments embodied in scientific theory. Any scientific theory must be developed, sometimes replaced by another, more valid theory. In this sense, truth is the end of the development of knowledge and at the same time a factor.
In the history of philosophy, the problem of truth (authenticity of knowledge) was defined in ancient times. In "Avesta" it is said that truth is the highest honor. Indeed, mankind has always sought the truth. Because the truth is the power that leads to justice and honor. According to Aristotle, the truth is the correspondence between the reasoning and the actual situation.
Plato understood reality as a supernatural independent ideal essence corresponding to the world of ideas, and believed that human knowledge is real only to the extent that the soul shares with this world of ideas.
Thomas Aquinas noted that truth does not exist in false things, but in the mind, and that everything can be called real only to the extent of its relation to the mind to which it depends.
According to Beruni, truth is the correspondence of knowledge to reality. According to Farobi, knowing the truth depends on the perfection of the mind. This mind is in the human heart, and its perfection is achieved by joining the active mind. From the First Cause, which is the highest level of existence, to the ultimate reality, there are all forms of reality in the active mind. Also, according to Farobi and his followers, truth cannot be multiple, truth is one, therefore philosophy cannot be multiple. Farobi believed in the immutability of truth and considered philosophy to be the only expression of truth[1]. Naqshbandi believed that truth is the realization of God. In Sufi interpretation, truth refers to an inner content that deviates from the scope of Sharia. The early Sufis tried to prevent a gap between Sharia and reality. Later Sufis, such as Abu Bakr al-Zakok, believed that the science of truth clarifies the path to Shari'ah. In fact, the rejection of religious beliefs and the doctrine that a person can acquire his "true existence", unite with the truth and become the truth only after passing through the stages of sharia and tariqat and attaining the truth is the development of Sufism. as a product of the next stages, the unity of existence (the unity of existence), that is, the founders of the doctrine of mystical pantheism, was put forward in the works of Bayazid Bistomi, Halloj and others.
In Hegel, the understanding of reality is related to the main principle of his philosophy. According to this principle, an idea in its complete and specific form is "a reality that has existence in itself and for itself." According to Hegel, truth in its abstract form means the conformity of a particular content to itself. While the fullness of this content is achieved through the spontaneous movement of the absolute idea, Hegel sees his truth not as a minted coin that can be given ready-made and thus pocketed, but as a pure describes the famous thesis that knowledge in the field of thinking should be understood as a dialectical process of formation: "...it's all about understanding and expressing the real thing not as a substance, but also as a subject", that is, as an activity of thinking [2].
The peculiarity of the objective-idealist understanding of reality is to look at it without connection to the process of reflection of the world in the mind and interpret it not as a property of human knowledge about the object, but as a property of some timeless idea objectified in addition to empirical existence. .
The subjective idealistic understanding of reality is connected with the properties and composition of human knowledge, but this knowledge is not connected to the reflection of the external, independent world, because the existence of such a world is denied. Truth is interpreted as "economy of thinking" (1) (Max), a process that allows us to achieve useful results, as a convenience in the image of our thinking (James), as a form of human experience that forms an ideological definition (Bogdanov).
Difficulties in understanding the truth, which the philosophy of idealism could not solve, led to the fact that philosophers put forward the doctrine of revealing the truth to man through revelation. This direction was called intuitionism. It was founded by Schopenhauer. He rejected the primacy of reason and scientific knowledge, put science in the place after intuition. Scientific research is based on intuition, therefore depends on and obeys it. Schopenhauer's views were developed by Bergson. Defending the superiority of intuitive knowledge, he points to the instinctive behavior of ants, that is, he puts forward the idea that instinct is a type of intuition. In his opinion, ants realize the truth immediately - as soon as they are born. The mind cannot understand it. The mind is only concerned with knowing relationships. Only instinct can understand the essence of things. No matter how powerful human technology is, it cannot do what an ant can easily do. Bergson advises not to trust reason and to rely more on intuition. Although man's intuition is not as strong as that of an ant, it is nevertheless stronger than his reason, because reason is "characterized by an organic understanding of life." Bergson approached intuition in terms of instinct as opposed to reason.
In modern theory of knowledge, there are different opinions about real knowledge and its forms.
Objective truth is the content of our knowledge that does not depend on human beings. In our knowledge there is always an element related to a certain person or a certain social group. Therefore, in our knowledge, we should note the content that does not depend on subjective elements and therefore is considered objective. Objective truth develops and operates in two forms: relative and absolute truth.
Absolute truth is full, perfect knowledge of a subject in such a way that it cannot be supplemented or clarified in the future. Because the universe is infinite in time and space, such knowledge is practically impossible to achieve. Equating the concept of truth with the concept of absolute truth, we are talking about its unattainability, that is, it is impossible to know at all. However, the real history of science shows the opposite: science develops because it is able to know the truth understood as a unity of relative and absolute knowledge. In other words, objective truth is absolute truth in full and perfect form. In some cases, if the truth does not change over time, that is, does not depend on the conditions of time, it is called eternal truth.
Relative truth is a knowledge characterized by the fact that the image does not correspond to the object, although it reflects the existence mostly correctly. Relative truth is true, but inaccurate, approximate, limited by certain historical conditions of time and place.
Relative and absolute truth are closely related. Relative truths develop in the process of the development of knowledge and approach absolute truth, which is its limit.
However, the process of historical development of knowledge is not only the process of transformation of relative truths into absolute truth, but also the process of emergence of certain absolute truths. This idea can be seen in the example of the development of ideas about the atom and its structure in physics. A hundred years ago, physicists and chemists assumed that atoms actually existed in the form of indivisible spheres. Underlying this vision were elements of absolute truth. From this comes the conclusion: "Atoms of chemical elements actually exist." The further development of physics and chemistry did not abolish this element of absolute truth. However, it was found that there are errors in these views (tension, inseparability, etc.).
The discovery of electrons at the end of the XNUMXth century created a new picture of the atomic structure. Thomson created a model of the atom consisting of positively charged particles and negatively charged electrons. In this relatively realistic view of the atom, new elements of absolute truth appeared: Indeed, the atom consists of positively charged particles.
The third stage in the development of the concept of the atom is related to the Rutherford-Bohr model. In this model, an atom consists of a nucleus and electrons revolving around it. In general, this model, which is more accurate than previous models, has elements of absolute truth. Currently, the ideas about the structure of the atom are based on the results of quantum mechanics and the study of the atomic nucleus. It is now known that the movement of electrons around the atomic nucleus can be compared to the movement of a cloud of uneven density, since electrons have corpuscular and wave properties, and the nucleus is considered a system of protons and neutrons, etc. In modern physics, the picture of the atom is more complete and accurate than in Bohr's theory, and it has more elements of absolute truth. However, there is no doubt that the current picture of the atom will change in the future, it will be clarified, and new truths and errors will be revealed in it. In reality, relative and absolute aspects are integral and interconnected: on the one hand, relative truth always contains elements of absolute truth, on the other hand, absolute truth emerges from relative truths during the development of human knowledge.
The dialectic of relative and absolute truth shows that our knowledge strives to comprehensively and clearly encompass the world around us, resolves contradictions, and reflects objective existence more deeply and perfectly.
There are correspondent, coherent and pragmatic conceptions of truth. Each of them faces great difficulties in the process of development in science.
The correspondent concept of reality requires that the theory is consistent with the data obtained in experience. This requirement is accepted in science, it is important in determining whether or not the proposed hypothesis applies to the field of science.
A coherent (theoretical) concept should be consistent with the experiment, not contradict it, and allow predicting its results. For example, neopositivists believed that experiment is the perfect demonstration that a theory is true. The theory is checked and verified in the experiment: it either passes this test successfully, or it does not pass; it is either true or false. K. Popper found a flaw in this idea: while theories are sooner or later denied, falsified, their previous compatibility with the experiment is not considered a real test in practice. Popper could be objected to: if a theory conflicts with some experimental data, then the theory cannot be used to explain these data, but it remains valid for other experimental data. In science, a new theory does not always exclude an old one. In physics, Newtonian mechanics is still used to explain some physical phenomena. However, it has been rejected by the latest physical theories. Newtonian mechanics has retained its importance as some relatively simple form of relativity and quantum physics.
The inconsistency of the theory with the experiment can be eliminated with the help of simple means, in particular by improving the old theory. In such cases, the work does not reach the scientific revolution. According to Lakatos, the most important rules of the theory are surrounded by a protective shell consisting of rules of the second order of importance, which receives the initial "shocks" of experimental data. The core of the theory can only be broken once its protective layer has been penetrated.
It should be noted that in the experiment, not one or another rule of the theory, but the theory as a whole is tested or rejected. Any particular rule is generally a product of theory. Therefore, the experiment is applied to the whole theory.
In the pragmatic concept of truth, the criterion of practice is often directly connected with the concept of experiment. However, scientific practice is not only an experiment, it covers the entire field of application of science, its vital importance for man. Taking this into account, it is no exaggeration to say that the whole life of a person, all aspects of his practical use of science, have become a testing ground for the validity of science.
The fast, complex nature of science makes serious demands on its interpretation. What is the power of science? What are his ideals? From science "How do things happen?" or "Why do they happen the way they do?" Is it enough to demand an answer to the question? Does science not conflict with art, religion, and other areas of human life? Doesn't science ultimately lead to the downfall of humanity? These questions are formed in the process of knowledge of the truth.
Proof and disproof. The validity or falsity of this or that rule of science is not clearly visible. Only the simplest reasoning requires the use of intuition to prove its validity: there is no need to prove what can be demonstrated.
Most of the rules of science are accepted as true at the level of knowledge through the senses and not separately from other facts, but at the level of logical thinking, connected to other facts, that is, by proof. Proof is an important tool of scientific thinking.
Any proof has a thesis, grounds for proof (evidence) and method of proof. A rule whose authenticity or falsity is being determined is called a thesis. Determining the falsity of a thesis is called refutation. All the rules that are used in the proof and show the validity of the thesis being proved are called grounds or proofs. Foundations and proofs consist of rules, definitions, axioms, and previously proven rules about valid proofs.
To prove the validity of a rule is to show that it follows directly from well-tested rules of evidence. However, life is so complicated that in practice it is possible to collect some evidence to support even completely counterintuitive rules. In this case, the existence of evidence that rejects these rules indicates that some evidence isolated from each other and from the environment does not prove anything by itself. Evidence can only be considered as a basis for proof when considered in relation to each other. The sentence of grounds for proof includes the definitions of the basic concepts of this science. This does not mean that all concepts of this science should be defined. Describing means connecting the unknown to the known, the complex to the simple.
In addition to the definitions and axioms of the basic concepts of the science, the basis for the proof on which the thesis is being proven includes the previously proven rules of the science necessary to support the thesis. The more science develops the proofs of its rules, the more the number of precedents for proving each new rule increases.
According to VFAsmus, the connection between the premises and the conclusions drawn from them is called a method of proof if it leads to the recognition of the validity of the thesis being proved. Proof of the same rule of science can be based on different, for example, deduction, induction, use of analogy, modeling.
Emotions. will, faith, ideal. In the past, intuitions were considered neutral in relation to the important aspects of phenomena. Usually this neutrality does not exist. In this case, sensations act as experiences that allow the subject to understand the personal meaning of what is happening. Directly feeling the significance of events and situations is called emotions. Positive emotions - pleasure, joy, surprise, love, etc. Negative emotions - fear, anger, hatred, sadness, etc. The world of human emotions is very complex, and it is thoroughly studied by psychology. Philosophically, the world of emotions is more studied by existentialism, where existentialism is often understood not as situational emotions (strong emotional excitement, passions), but as stable structures of human existence. A person's emotions are strongly influenced by his entire life experience. Sometimes a short message expressed in one word has been known to cause death.
Among the various forms of the human psyche, the will is the most important - the ability of the subject to regulate his own activities. For Kant and Fichte, the will is the source of the realization of moral principles, the basis of human practical activity. For Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, the will is an irrational impulse of being. Here the will is completely removed from the psyche.
Belief is important in accepting something or an event as real in the world of human values and goals. Doubt prepares the ground for faith, which turns into faith as a result of a number of mental states. Unlike theologians, philosophers pay more attention to the relationship between doubt and belief. Religious belief, as a direct product of revelation, is generally regarded as needing no proof. Swiss progressive theologian Karl Barth believed that the proof of faith lies in itself. For the philosopher Carl Jaspers, philosophical belief is the result of philosophical observation.
An ideal is not a specific image of the ultimate future, but a future-oriented set of various theoretical and other visions that can be revised. The ideal does not always depend on the superiority of the ultimate goal. The predominance of a specific end goal, especially if it is in the distant future, leads to utopia. Some utopians recognize the primacy of freedom, other utopians put justice in this place, the third category of utopians recognizes only social property, and the fourth category, on the contrary, puts private property above all else. Therefore, the creation of an ideal, if it is not approached with sufficient responsibility, leads to utopia. At the same time, creating an ideal is an important basis of human achievement. Humanity would not have been able to achieve its current progress if it had not been engaged in ideal creation. However, in order for the process of ideal creation to proceed rationally, there must be a developed, up-to-date philosophy. Correct philosophical goals avoid utopianism. Non-classical philosophy, formed mainly in the XNUMXth century, deals with ideals very carefully.
Assessment of learning outcomes. Evaluation of the achieved result is a necessary element of knowledge. By evaluation, it is determined whether the acquired knowledge is genuine or fake, whether it can be used in practical activities or not. It determines whether or not the received knowledge will participate in the further cognitive process, and determines its potential to influence a person and his spiritual activity. Therefore, not only epistemological, but also practical, ideological and moral criteria apply as a basis for evaluation.
In his work, a scientist not only evaluates his own methods and scientific results, but also considers them based on the attitude of the scientific community, authorities, and religious figures. In general, all knowledge is a search for truth. This is the eternal task of the human mind. The problem of validity of our knowledge is important in any kind of cognitive activity. Therefore, the validity of knowledge is its important basis. Truth is the absolute value of knowledge.
Spiritual values of knowledge. There are moral values and standards in any scientific research. The scientific method should be based on traditional moral values such as objectivity and rationality. Objectivity presupposes that the scientist is conscientious about the choice of research standards, suppresses self-interest, and puts the truth above the interests of the group.
Depending on the age, certain scientific concepts acquire their own "symbolic" signs. Abandoning outdated concepts is often associated with overcoming the resistance of their creators. A scientist can sometimes become a prisoner of old approaches, unable to find the strength to prefer new ideas that pave the way for a revolution in science.
Knowledge and truth are practically identical concepts. Knowing means having reliable information that corresponds to the real state of things. Is true knowledge attainable? What kind of knowledge can be considered real? Are there objective and absolute criteria for the validity of knowledge? Answers to these questions have always accompanied the development of science and philosophy. For example, Aristotle equated reality with existence. According to him, only immutable things are real, reality is the highest form of existence.
Representatives of skepticism, on the contrary, believed that the question of the conformity of knowledge to the subject is controversial and cannot be proven, because there are factors that confuse or hinder knowledge. The reasons for the inconsistency of knowledge may lie in the structure of the object of knowledge. The world is so infinite that man is not able to comprehend it with his thinking. The properties of the knowing subject can also prevent the achievement of true knowledge. Deception and unreliability of human senses were recorded in ancient times. Later, Hume, Berkeley, and their followers showed that the world of human senses is completely subjective, and in this way they expressed distrust in human sense organs.
In the course of the development of knowledge, scientists also conducted research to find reliable criteria for the validity of knowledge. Are there absolute criteria of truth? Can these criteria be applied to all types of knowledge or does it only apply to scientific knowledge? In philosophy, criteria are created that can be applied to all types of knowledge, as well as criteria that meet the requirements of scientific knowledge only. Among them, the following are noted: the criterion of commonality (what the majority accepts is true); usefulness, practical efficiency and usability of the idea, the criterion of its usefulness to achieve one or another goal (pragmatism). Things that people believe, things and events that correspond to the conditional agreement between scientists (conventionalism), things and events that meet the requirements of the criterion of conformity to the existing theory are called real.
Principle of verification. According to this principle, the validity of any idea about the world should be determined by comparing it with the information received through the senses. From this point of view, the concepts of parapsychology such as "energy", "prana", "biofield" have no logic, because they cannot be verified. Positivist philosophy, which announced this principle, tried to exclude philosophical concepts that are not important for knowledge from scientific circulation. However, with the consistent application of this principle, it is necessary to remove from scientific circulation many theoretical rules that are not confirmed by the information received through the sense organs.
Karl Popper proposed a criterion of falsifiability of theoretical systems. According to this criterion, theories that can be practically tested and rejected are considered scientific. Popper considered the existence of disproportion between verification and falsification as a criterion: if an infinite number of consequences must be confirmed for verification, then only one counterexample is sufficient for falsification. In practice, the requirement of falsifiability is a specification of the requirement of criticality in relation to the results of human knowledge. Criticism expresses the spirit of science in its most rational form.
Lie. A lie is the opposite of the truth. Lying is generally understood as knowingly raising false perceptions to the level of truth.
Lying is common in everyday and social life and occurs everywhere people interact; it is a function of any human relationship in which the interests of individuals and social groups meet. It is not a question of whether or not a lie exists (ordinary life experience proves its existence), but how much of it there is in each specific case.
According to Beruni, "There are such people whose nature is to spread false news, as if this task is assigned to them, and they cannot stop spreading false news... Sometimes a person imitates a person who spreads false news , unknowingly spreads false news. These whistleblowers act as intermediaries between the first person who intentionally spreads a false message and the last person who hears the false message. Lying turns a person away from justice, tyranny, perjury, betrayal of trust, taking other people's property by deception, theft, and other bad habits that cause the destruction of the world and the nation are considered good by people. they show."1 Beruni urges a person to remain truthful and not follow the path of lies, to do good to others, to express good wishes when there is no opportunity to do good. According to Beruni, honesty and justice are signs of high spirituality and good manners.
In the process of individual development of a person, a lie is formed in a child by trying to escape from punishment, by the example of adults, and so on. Later on, society will have a stronger influence. Passions, including love, begin to take an increasingly large place among the set of factors that push a person in this direction. Love creates countless lies. A lover lies to increase his price, to discredit his rival, to stoke the flames of jealousy… he deceives to rekindle the dying fire of love, finally, love is lost. lies" [3]. Lies arise from arrogance, lack of will, desire for success, revenge for money, power, etc.
Lying is also important for individuals in a positive sense (in this respect, lying at the bedside of a dying person is notable). But lies are often associated with gaining some advantage at the expense of others and against their interests. There are people who make lying a way of life.
Nevertheless, there are more honest, conscientious people. How to distinguish them from liars? True sincerity is distinguished by two main signs: "the ability to hurt someone with the bitter truth and to openly admit one's mistakes." "A person who, while benevolent, can hurt you without telling a lie, who, instead of giving the answer you want and expect, tells you the truth to your face without fear of offending, can be considered sincere. But a sincere person can be distinguished by his courage to admit his mistakes, that is, it can be said that an honest person will admit his wrongdoing without any hesitation. Preferring such a confession to a lie is an undoubted criterion of truthfulness»[4].
Get it wrong. At all stages of the spreading and deepening of truth, its constant and necessary companion is error. People (not only in the field of science) have always been interested in the questions of what is truth and how it can be freed from errors (in Bacon's words, "idols of thought"). The categories of truth and falsity are the main categories in the theory of knowledge that represent two opposite, but interrelated aspects of a single cognitive process. Each of these aspects has its own characteristics, which we will consider below.
Error - knowledge that is not in common with its subject, does not correspond to it. The main source of error, which is a false form of knowledge, is socio-historical practice and the limitation, deficiency or weakness of knowledge. In its essence, a mistake is a wrong perception of existence, which occurs as a result of the absolutization of the results of knowing certain aspects of existence. For example, "theoretical astrology", although it contains some elements of truth, is generally misleading. There are also mistakes in scientific astronomy, but in general it is a true system of knowledge that has been confirmed in the process of observations.
Mistakes make it difficult to get to the bottom of the truth, but they are inevitable, a necessary element of the movement of knowledge towards the truth, one of the possible forms of this process. For example, the formation of the science of substances - chemistry - took place in the form of "big mistake" - alchemy.
Mistakes are diverse in their forms. It is necessary to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific, empirical and theoretical, religious and philosophical errors. Specifically, philosophical fallacies include empiricism, rationalism, sophistry, eclecticism, dogmatism, and relativism.
Misrepresentation should be distinguished from lies - deliberately distorting the truth for malicious purposes and related false information, disinformation. If error is a characteristic of knowledge, error is the result of wrong actions of an individual in a certain aspect of human activity: mistakes in calculation, politics, life, etc. true errors denoted by are distinguished.
Conclusions. Truth is the criterion of knowledge. Human practical activity is aimed at determining the truth. But the truth is side by side with lies. Lies are a part of human life.
The development of practice and knowledge shows that sooner or later these errors will be eliminated: either they will fall from the scene (for example, the doctrine of the "eternal engine"), or they will become real knowledge (the transformation of alchemy into chemistry). Changing and improving the social conditions that caused mistakes, maturity of socio-historical practice, development and deepening of knowledge are important factors to eliminate mistakes. This requires not an apologetic (defensive-justifying) approach to existence, but a constructive-critical approach, the implementation of the "trial and error" method (Popper).
Practical practical texts
Truth, objective truth, absolute truth, relative truth, pragmatic concept of truth, proof, refutation, emotions, ideal, will, belief, doubt, evaluation of the results of knowledge, moral values of knowledge, principle of verification, lie, mistake.
Additional and explanatory texts
Books
Nazarov K. Philosophy of knowledge - T.: University, 2005.
Foundations of philosophy. Under the editorship of Q. Nazarov. - T.: Sharq, 2005.
Shermukhamedova N. Philosophy and science methodology. - T.: University, 2005.
Vrigt GX Logiko-philosofskiye issledovaniya. -M.: 1986.
Ilin VV Theory Poznan. Epistemology. - M.: 1994.
Kochergin AN Metodi i formi nauchnogo poznaniya. - M.: 1990.
Nikiforov A. Philosophical science. History and methodology. -M.: 1998.
Svinov VI Zablujdeniye, lodge, disinformation // Filosofskiye nauki. 1982. #1.
Popper K. Loj i istina nauchnogo znaniya. - M.: Znaniye, 1993.
Tishenko AV Istina v istoricheskom poznanii: dissertation ... kandida filosofskikh nauk : 09.00.11. Yoshkar-Ola, 2005.
Berezhnoy, Sergey Borisovich Kategorii «bitiye», «nichto», «istina» kak predmet ravnitelnogo analiza : Martin Heidegger i buddiyskaya ontologiya : autoreferat dis. ... candida filosofskikh nauk : 09.00.01 / Moscow. Mr. un-t im. MV Lomonosova. Moscow, 2007.
[1] See SM Hotami from the history of Islamic thought. -T.: Minhoj, 2003.-B.126
