Philosophy - science or “frame of reference“?
U ancient the concept “ philosophy “ meant “aspiration to understanding“, “aspiration to knowledge“, “I am eager for knowledge“. In translation into Russian the word “philosophy“ is translated as “love to wisdom“.
M. N. Zadornov: “The clever person - knows, and wise - also understands what he knows“.
Originally in works on philosophy were included by all modern knowledge of the world and the person. But in process of development of sciences the philosophy began to take the form of “science of sciences“, the area of knowledge generalizing scientific knowledge. In philosophical dictionaries of the last Soviet years it was possible to read something similar: “The philosophy is a world outlook science about the most general laws of development of the nature (world around), human society and thinking“. At least, accurately and clearly.
Acquaintance of the Russian philosophers for the last 20 years with works of the western colleagues moreover and attempt to play the same role in Russia what is played by philosophers in the West, brought big turmoil in minds of our philosophers as attempts to reconcile the mass of the western philosophical directions with our mentality did not lead to anything good. In one of manuals and it is written down: “It is almost impossible to give unambiguous definition to philosophy which would suit all. Only the general approach is meanwhile looked through: the philosophy is a conceiving outlook (and it is written down), essential understanding, the highest orientation, topmost expression of meanings and values, the instruction on a strategic objective of our stay in the universe“.
And this semantic okroshka our students and graduate students study, still take examination of a candidate minimum. And what for? If philosophy - not science, but a certain collection of knowledge, a set of meanings etc. why it to study in higher education institution? For this reason in some of our higher education institutions the subject “science philosophy“ is entered, here, at least, more and more - it is less clear.
For what all this is made? The opinion appeared and is widely cultivated that definition of philosophy as “sciences about the most general laws of development“ is the archaism which is subject to elimination from modern philosophical language (as though such exists). Well, and for what it? In my opinion, to have an opportunity to prove any nonsense, issuing these proofs for scientific knowledge (and similar works - a dime a dozen). That is an opportunity the anything not based on, unscientific methods to prove anything for advantage of ruling class is created, giving it for scientific researches.
And in general there were fashionable discussions that philosophy - not only science or maybe at all not science. Even more often in philosophy texts transfers - philosophy, science etc. are used. that is the thought is persistently imposed that philosophy - not absolutely science or just not science (otherwise as to tie religion and any chatter to it). In general, very often in response to the question “what is philosophy?“ it is possible to read that definition of philosophy is one of the main questions of modern philosophy and represents a serious problem. That is people seriously declare that they do not understand, than are engaged. And how differently to interpret it?
And to understand, than all - philosophers, at least - professional philosophers are engaged, it is necessary to return to sources. And if the philosophy is a love to wisdom, aspiration to understand the sum of the knowledge accumulated about the world surrounding us, then other question - about a ratio of wisdom and knowledge becomes the basic. Because still Leonardo da Vinci told: “Wisdom - the daughter of experience“.
The rector of MSU, the academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences V. A. Sadovnichiy in one of the reports devoted to philosophy explained: “Generally speaking, wisdom is “wide experience“, experience of many generations which was saved up for centuries and in the millennia“. And, at the same time, wisdom is not reduced to the sum of the accumulated knowledge, because as Heraclitus told, “the multiknowledge to mind does not nauchat“. The thin, but important side distinguishing knowledge from wisdom also consists in it. Knowledge is something always concrete even if this knowledge of religion, an occultism etc. And wisdom is an aspiration to understanding, judgment of knowledge.
Such idea of relationship of knowledge and wisdom led V. A. Sadovnichiy to understanding of distinctions between them. If knowledge, being concrete, have international character, then wisdom as understanding of knowledge, wisdom deeply national as representatives of the different people differently understand the world surrounding them is connected not only with formal knowledge, but also with intuition, inspiration, art perception, even with belief, and in this sense. For this reason works of the Russian philosophers so strikingly differ from western, and foreigners, studying Russians on works of our great writers, cannot understand “the mysterious Russian in any way I smother“. At the heart of this mystery and incomprehensibility the different understanding of meaning of life and great Russian which essence is not so much information, how many emotional coloring that allows to represent the world surrounding us in all its variety of colors lie.
The western people, being exclusively business and practical, so cut short the language received from ariyev - Celts that it began to transfer unambiguous information generally. And Russian, having absorbed in itself a variety of colors of languages of the East, got emotional coloring even more. Therefore the western person, even in perfection having learned Russian, with such work understands us. For example, having asked a question, he will never understand the received answer in a look: “yes, probably, is not present“ though everything is clear to the Russian person here. From here and idea of “mysterious Russian soul“ which is so difficult for understanding. Well, and a difference in mentality. The western person - mainly the individualist, and Russian - mainly the collectivist, therefore also perception of the same events - a miscellaneous.
All here told leads us to understanding that the philosophy is a generalization, judgment of what to mankind, mainly through science, became known of the reality surrounding us and of the person existing in this reality. And as the person does this generalization according to the mentality, and such striking difference between philosophy western, Russian, east etc. turns out.
But is, there is one direction in philosophy giving it all lines of science. It is dialectic materialism which is in essence international. Also it is intuitively clear to people of any nationality. Because it possesses, as well as any science, own axiomatics, generalization in the form of scientific laws and the annex to practice. And perhaps, only the dialectic materialism can appropriate definition “science of sciences“.
Of course, it is uncomfortable to fans “to philosophize“ within original science what the dialectic materialism is, well so for this purpose tens, and even hundreds of others of “the philosophical directions“ in which there are no restrictions inherent in science will be useful to them. Here, as they say, “to free - will, and rescued - paradise“. Only it is not necessary to give the nonsense for the ultimate truth. The truth is the scientific term.