The role of faith intuition practice in the process of cognition. Sensual and rational cognition. The role of intuition in the cognitive process. The concept of intuition, its features

One of the most dangerous delusions of our time is the overestimation of the role of discursive thinking (mind) and the underestimation of direct intuitive knowledge. Reason - that which distinguishes man from animals and makes him the "crown of creation" - is erroneously declared the highest dignity of man. We used to talk about greatness and power human mind, we lightly declare it to be the highest value and do not see the difference between an intelligent person and a wise person.

In fact, reason is a lower, in comparison with intuition, cognitive ability, functioning only within the limits of duality, subordinate to logic and not able to go beyond it. Intuition, on the other hand, is a qualitatively different, higher cognitive ability in relation to the mind, not limited by duality, going beyond the logical and, by its nature, fundamentally paradoxical.

“Staying in duality” is such a way of perceiving reality, which is characterized by a rigid and categorical division of everything that exists into irreconcilable opposites and their constant opposition. Rational knowledge is characterized by intolerance to contradictions. It does not recognize the right to the simultaneous existence of both opposites. Such a cognitive attitude is expressed in the Christian thesis “black is black, white is white; everything else is from the evil one.” However, Eastern mystics argue that the opposite principles, Yin and Yang, should not form a rigid static structure in which they, puffed up, stand against each other, like two armies before a battle. Intuition is a consistent and dynamic integrity of contradictory principles: good and evil, day and night, black and white. The great Guru of Tibet, Padmasambhava (5th century BC), whom Tibetans consider the reincarnation of Buddha Gautama, expressed the idea of ​​non-duality of higher knowledge with its inherent power and conciseness: “Opposites, in reality, do not exist, and pluralism is also untrue. Enlightenment is not possible until dualism is cast aside and unity is known.”

This statement echoes the words of the great 20th-century physicist Niels Bohr: “Every deep truth has the peculiarity that the statement diametrically opposed to it is no less deep truth.”

Absoluteization of one pole of a pair of opposites and rejection of the other can only be in thinking, but not in real life. Hegel spoke remarkably about this: “The north pole in a magnet cannot be without the south, and the south cannot be without the north. If we cut the magnet into two halves, then we will not have the north pole in one piece, and the south pole in the other.

So reason is logical and, as such, does not tolerate contradictions. But is the world, the objective reality that it seeks to know, logical? It turns out that in fact, all real life is woven from contradictions. As one of my acquaintances, who had a dog for many years, told me, "the leash has two ends." You can go even further and say that in general everything in this world "has two ends." However, the paradoxical nature of being cannot be grasped by the mind, which rejects everything that "does not correspond to common sense and elementary logic." “No, you can prove it to me!”, the “reasonable” person demands. But he is unaware that any evidence works only within the limits of discursive thinking, only within the limits of reason. The complete senselessness of the requirement of logical proofs is especially clearly visible when it comes to truths. higher order, the knowledge of which requires transcending the mind, that is, going beyond its limits.

One wise Sufi master said about this: “Demanding intellectual proof of the existence of God is like demanding to see with the ears.” With regard to such a range of issues, the requirement “prove!” gives out the spiritual immaturity and cognitive failure of the questioner, indicates that he does not understand the elementary truths of the theory of knowledge. Mystics of all ages have faced this problem - learned ignoramuses, full of self-satisfaction, willing to argue, but incapable of higher knowledge.

In this regard, the less logical and more intuitive East has significant advantages over the scientific and technical, computerized to the marrow, West. The East is closer to understanding that true wisdom cannot be expressed except as a paradox. Here is an example of this kind of Eastern wisdom: "When dealing with an enemy, do not forget that he can become a friend; when dealing with a friend, do not forget that he can become an enemy."

Pure (that is, abstracted from the intuitive beginning) logic is always rigid and static, while intuition is fluid and mobile, has a pronounced dynamic character. The mind, meeting with any statement, requires its proof and checks it in terms of logical criteria of truth. Intuition does not recognize these claims of reason, because the lower cannot judge the higher. Arthur Schopenhauer said remarkably about the limitations of the rational-logical cognition inherent in science and the self-sufficiency of intuitively cognizable truth:

“This path of cognition, characteristic of the sciences, from the general to the particular, entails that in them much is justified by deduction from the preceding propositions, i.e. evidence; this gave rise to the old delusion, that only what has been proved is completely true, and that every truth needs proof, while, on the contrary, every proof rather needs an unprovable truth, which would serve as the ultimate support of itself or, again, its proof: here why directly proven truth is as much preferable to evidence based truth as spring water is better than that taken from the aqueduct.

Intuition is always beyond logic. Logic is always dualistic, two-dimensional, while intuition is three-dimensional. Metaphorically speaking, logic can deal not with a three-dimensional object, but only with its projection onto a plane (please do not lose sight of the metaphorical, and not the literal nature of this statement). From here arises the fundamental paradox and illogicality of intuitive knowledge. But only in this way can higher truths be expounded. The language of the great sages and mystics has always been distinguished by precisely this feature, and we are not talking about logical errors and absurdities. This is not at all the level of pre-scientific, imperfect thinking, the inability to think, but a completely, completely different level - the level of the ability not to think, not the level of “non-thinking”, but the level of super-thinking, which, in fact, is no longer thinking at all. Intuition is by no means a negation of logic, that is, a form of intellectual wretchedness, an archaic "childish" form of pre-scientific knowledge. Although intuition is indeed not logic, it is not lower than thinking, but higher than it; it does not negate discursive thinking, but transcends it.

In fact, a person needs both - both a strong disciplined thinking, and a clear intuitive insight into the essence of things. It should only be remembered that discursive thinking is never self-sufficient. The mind, devoid of natural, not always noticed, but always present support from intuition, at least in the guise of the so-called "common sense" - inevitably degenerates into schizophrenia.

The mind can only decide on the internal consistency of some system of views, some concept that describes reality, but it can never give us guarantees that this description is adequate to reality. He always leaves open the question of the adequacy of the informational description of a real object. The mind always uses words and symbols, without them its functioning is impossible (in ancient Greek, the same word was used to denote speech and mind - “logos”).

It is quite obvious that any speech message, and consequently, thinking, built on the principle of internal dialogue, is initially inherent in duality (dualism). This proves the fact that any sequence of characters and symbols used to express and convey some meaning can ultimately be reduced to a binary code (0 - 1, yes - no, dot - dash). But this is also the division into opposites, this is the duality of speech and thinking.

Thus, our mind, inconceivable without internal (thinking) and external speech, is always a computer mind, by definition not capable of going beyond duality. In addition, discursive thinking (and, accordingly, speech, which is inextricably linked with it), is fundamentally discrete. Each symbol, each word, each thesis (premise) is separated from the others. Discreteness can be defined as the "fluidity" of thinking and speech (the image of gravel that pours stone after stone), while the quality of continuity is inherent in intuitive wisdom-prajna. It can be likened to oil pouring from a jug in a continuous stream.

Words, words... Words can explain anything, prove anything, and refute anything (ancient Greek sophistry is a good example of this). But are words any meaningful criterion of truth? The so-called "explanatory power of a theory" is, in fact, a rather dubious criterion of its truth. I can say this as a professional psychologist: neurotics, paranoids, and "virtually healthy" people who come with their "unsolvable" personal and emotional problems - all, without exception, have their own versions of reality that perfectly explain everything, but, unfortunately often completely inconsistent with the true state of affairs. This criterion (explanatory power) requires that all the facts that we have at our disposal fit (explain) in a consistent way in a theoretical scheme. It requires the absence of contradictions and logical inconsistencies, it requires complete internal consistency between all the constituent elements of a given theory. Let us repeat once again the thought already expressed earlier, in view of its special importance:

The mind can ensure the consistency and mutual consistency of the system of signs and symbols that claim to describe reality, but the mind does not guarantee the adequacy of this reflection, its truth. So, for example, it is known that a paranoid delusional system, as a rule, is distinguished by logic, internal consistency of all its components and great persuasiveness for an outsider who is not familiar with how things really are (a standard trap for inexperienced journalists). Other examples of this are the "legend" of the intelligence officer, the false version of the criminal trying to deceive the investigation, or the usual everyday lie ("Honey, I was late today due to a serious business need - another accident at the substation"). Perhaps the reader will want to object that the examples given are, so to speak, of an everyday nature, but for strict disciplined scientific thinking, everything is completely different. Such a reader is invited to visit the cemetery of obsolete scientific theories. Their authors were no dumber than you and me, on the contrary, many were much smarter than us, but this, as we see from the results, did not help them much.

There is no fundamental, profound difference between the “everyday” and scientific functioning of the mind. Logic, not substantiated by intuition, in any sphere of its action inevitably creates false, inadequate theories. Logic and adequacy are completely different things, and the second does not automatically follow from the first. This is well illustrated by the following example:

“You walk down the street and ask a passer-by:

“Excuse me, do you happen to know what time it is?” - to which he answers you:

“Yes, I know, and it passes by.”

His answer is absolutely logical, completely consistent with the question; there are no logical inconsistencies, contradictions between the question and the answer (of course, if we look at it from the point of view of "pure" logic, not burdened by common sense). However, from the point of view of this very common sense, from the point of view of the context, this is a complete inadequacy, which can be interpreted either as outright rudeness, or as a mental illness. In this example, everything is presented in a vivid grotesque form, however, many people who sincerely consider themselves rational beings often make a similar mistake: they cling to purely external, formal-logical contradictions in the words of the interlocutor, while completely ignoring their semantic content and context. in which these words are spoken. It is a sad sight to see a self-confident intellectual nonentity listening to an intelligent person not in order to learn something from him, to draw something from him, but in order to catch his interlocutor in some purely formal contradiction and thus assert himself for him. check. Well, it’s not without reason that Scripture says just for such cases: “Do not throw pearls in front of pigs, for they will turn on you and tear you to pieces.” This unhealthy style of communication is much more common than it seems at first glance.

So, we have come to the conclusion that the explanatory power of a theory is by no means a self-sufficient criterion of its truth. Quite possibly logically flawless, consistent and in the highest degree a convincing exposition of an erroneous and inadequate theory, while the undoubted truth, based on a deep and clear insight into the nature of reality, can be stated very obscurely, confusedly and incoherently, with many contradictions and logical inconsistencies. In the first case, we have a remarkable development of verbal intelligence and discursive thinking with a regrettable insufficiency of intuition. In another case, on the contrary, a wonderful intuitive vision with an inability to fully and efficiently formalize it in words. Of course, we should not forget about the fundamental impossibility of verbalization of higher intuitive knowledge. Here, if you wish, you can point out a logical contradiction in what was written above: on the one hand, it speaks of the inexpressibility of the intuitively known, on the other, of adequate verbalization. In fact, there is no contradiction, since there are spheres of experience in relation to which both intuitive knowledge and rational explanation are possible (the sphere of the gross material), however, there are other spheres, when moving into which the verbalization of intuitive comprehension becomes more and more difficult and, finally, becomes impossible.

It can be concluded that although the mind is the lowest cognitive ability, and the highest truth is inexpressible, nevertheless, it would be a gross mistake to reject the mind, discursive thinking. It is simply impossible to put him, as people of science do, in the role of master of knowledge. His role, although important, is subordinate, and he must know his place.

All these considerations bring us close to the problem of explicit and implicit knowledge.

Explicit and implicit knowledge

Knowledge that a person receives on the basis of known cognitive mechanisms is usually divided into explicit and implicit, i.e. explicit and hidden, deep. Explicit knowledge is a sign system - these are books, magazines (printed products); lectures are a verbal form of a sign system; tape recorders, duplicators, television, computers, facsimile machines, mobile phones - technical means. Such knowledge has a well-developed conceptual apparatus, each of their details can be reproduced and stored. They are formed in the process of the act of cognition on the basis of the traditional cognitive mechanism.

Implicit knowledge is not formulated, it is obtained directly - this is an individual spiritual experience, a look turned inward, rather a feeling of knowledge, a person is not separated from what he knows, this is the result of a knowing imagination), here is a value-oriented approach. A feature of implicit knowledge is its spontaneous nature, it arises almost instantly, without giving time for reflection, i.e. to the work of the mind. This is an extra-rational process that goes beyond the limits imposed by the senses. The terms "explicit" and "implicit" knowledge were introduced by the Anglo-American philosopher Michael Polanyi. In his research, he paid the main attention to implicit, personal knowledge (Polanyi M. Personal knowledge: on the way to postcritical philosophy. M .: Progress, 1958.).

Let us consider in detail implicit knowledge as an extra-rational cognitive mechanism.

The more complex and unregulated the activity is, the more its results are determined by the person's personal knowledge. This statement concerns, first of all, science, but here, in fact, everything is not so simple: scientific knowledge is primarily an intellectual, rational process, and personal knowledge lies beyond the scope of the intellect. This is the result of the fact that we very narrowly define the process and mechanism of scientific knowledge, practically excluding the field of the non-rational from it. On the other hand, creativity has become a force defining the new century. Everyone strives for the actualization of his personality, penetration into his own inner world, development of the Highest in himself.

We all have deep, inner knowledge, and the main thing here is to isolate them in a non-stop stream of thoughts. Among other things, it is necessary to think about the subject, which, first of all, allows you to differentiate, fix the knowledge concerning it, simply put, pay attention to it, remember the thought that has come to mind. This is implicit knowledge, implicit, hidden, latent, uncodified, it can be called personal knowledge, which is inextricably linked with its carrier. A person may not know that he possesses it, but it unconditionally exists and, when the need arises, makes itself felt. This knowledge is called intuitive.

The role of intuition in our life is colossal. Usually we fail at all on some subtle and unusually complex things. In all spheres of life of various scales, failures and catastrophes are caused by non-compliance with the most simple and very simple principles. Therefore, it is not the deepest and most subtle minds that often succeed in life, but rather mediocre people who know not so much, but who realize well what they know. The systematic work of the average mind, built on intuitive sound principles, can be much more effective than the unsystematic efforts of a genius. There is certainly some truth in this.

The problem of the conceptual apparatus arises. Apparently, not all implicit knowledge can be called intuitive. They should be divided into intuitive, taking shape in the sphere of everyday experience, within the boundaries of this world, within the framework of life collisions and relationships that allow linking knowledge to context, and knowledge transcendental. Intuitive personal knowledge, along with explicit ones, which we do not consider now, are the object of management within the framework of the organization's management. And they are of interest to managers from the point of view of obtaining a practical result of an innovative nature that brings the maximum effect. But implicit, in-depth knowledge can be global in nature, be associated with understanding the foundations of the universe, the relationship between man - God, man - the Universe, the place of man in space, relate to models of the development of society, the new world order, etc.

In this case, a person can experience an exit into a depersonalized consciousness, devoid of the usual meanings, this is the world of “non-existent being,” as V.V. called it. Nalimov, "this is creativity that allows you to touch the Highest Reality, this is contact with the secret" (Nalimov V. In search of other meanings. M .: Progress, 1993.). Such knowledge can hardly be called intuition, it is a world that is not the source of our thoughts and perceptions in the ordinary state of consciousness, but a transcendental experience, access to transcendental spheres, other models of the world. This is directly related to science in those moments that we call insight.

Implicit knowledge is high creativity, inspiration. There is no preliminary author's concept here - this is the property of the mind. The bearer of inner knowledge does not create knowledge itself, he makes it possible, this is an impersonal process that has its own dynamics and leads a person along. If we are talking about a representative of science, then he has a very developed rational thinking, unlike, for example, a poet or an artist, and he naturally tries to find an explanation for this state. He experienced that it is his personal experience, and now wants to understand how he achieved this. After all, intuition, inspiration are not achievable through willpower or intellectual work, they just happen.

So what was it, how he is not alone, how other people of different eras and cultures were able to express a similar state? And this is really one and the same state: the order of things, the essence of being, the structure of the world - one timeless substance. And we are immersed in the noospheric cultural space developed by human thought, there we are trying to find people who have experienced the same state and whose way of expressing this state is close to us. A living thread is stretched between us - the joy of recognizing not only an idea, but what is behind it, a feeling of the hidden depths of a person's knowledge, the path he has traveled, everything he has felt. Immersion in the cultural environment is an impulse for a new creative impulse. Such internal states are prolonged precisely in creativity, only it can stop the moment, the moment of seeing the order of things or the essence of being, and here great creations are created. I think that Academician V.I. Vernadsky in his theory of the noosphere.

At the same time, it must be recognized that the division of implicit knowledge into intuitive and transcendental is conditional. In any case, this knowledge was obtained in a non-rational way, it is the result of the expansion of consciousness, access to another reality, where the mechanism of internal, spiritual vision works. And again the problem of the conceptual apparatus arises: spiritual experience is a transcendent experience associated with the experience of otherworldly reality, or any experience that gives a sense of another reality, bringing implicit knowledge. And isn’t implicit knowledge itself a contact with another reality, if not high, transcendent, then anyway going beyond the limits of “everyday meanings”?

It seems that the difficulties associated with an attempt to define the concept of spirituality are of a fundamental nature. This concept does not fit into the framework of rational thinking, cannot be adequately displayed in the form of logical constructions, but is associated with a higher plane of being - spiritual experience. Reason has no means of expressing subjective spiritual experience. It cannot be described in words, because it lies outside the realm of the senses and the intellect, from which our words and concepts originate. And only in general view we can say that spirituality is always striving beyond the narrow worldly meaning, it is a transcendent principle in a person.

Implicit knowledge is recognized as the most important for a person, the economy and society as a whole. Naturally, the modern world requires their indispensable formalization, coding, and making them accessible to the user. Such technologies are being introduced wherever it is effective, which leads to an acceleration in the rate of diffusion of new knowledge. The transformation of personal knowledge into knowledge available to others is the main activity of a company that creates knowledge. And here, of course, we need people who know the secrets of formalizing hidden knowledge. In any case, these are high creative forces, freedom from preconceived notions. The level of intelligence and the amount of explicit knowledge that a person owns, the ability to isolate the new from the total amount of information provided, the courage to name this new, which means to translate it into structured explicit knowledge, are very important.

A huge amount of information and knowledge is lost, we simply do not catch it. However, it happens that absolutely spontaneously we begin to write down our thoughts, moreover, concerning a particular subject, and we ourselves do not immediately understand why we are writing them down. But if we started to do this, then we will not miss the newly come thought, we will fix it. And then you get a study that pulls other works based on it as a basis. Obviously, here knowledge is a source of formation of new knowledge that is fixed and can be transferred for use.

You can try to see the process of obtaining internal, implicit knowledge in a slightly different way. Inner knowledge, and these are the depths of our consciousness, is a huge power. However, formalizing, sorting out the experience gained means not trusting one’s own experience, since formalization is always associated with the activity of the mind, which greatly reduces the value of experience (the term “experience” means a direct inner experience that gives full evidence of the truth, this is a conceptually non-mediated act, characterized by the connectedness of the experienced with the experiencing subject and the significance of the experienced for the subject).

It seems that by deciphering, transmitting, formalizing such knowledge, we simplify it, reducing it to the level of understanding. What is expressed in words is only a model of the process, in one way or another adequate to the process itself. In fact, personal knowledge has a powerful emotional charge, great power and intensity, and goes beyond a clearly expressed meaning. In this case, when formalizing implicit knowledge, a difficult task arises: to what extent is it possible to catch its deep, unmanifested meaning? Is it realistic to solve the problem adequately?

On the other hand, how can science exist without an attempt to clarify experience, to bring it into the sphere of the known? The impossibility of expressing implicit knowledge verbally does not depend on the level of consciousness at which our experience takes place - at the level of everyday reality or reaching metaphysical heights. In any case, it is very difficult to convey directly received knowledge in its original form, especially in the absence of a conceptual apparatus. In addition, if we use our speech to reveal inner experience, then its depth, and with it the personal essence, disappear.

It is clear that the process of obtaining implicit knowledge is associated with a deep transformation of the personality, these are processes that are inseparable from one another. Such states represent immersion in spiritual reality, “ascent in being”, according to the Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev. Such an experience allows us to learn about the potential forces of love, productive activity inherent in us, it gives a feeling of connection with the Higher reality. Apparently, this is the original matrix imprinted in the human mental sphere, an element of the collective unconscious according to Carl Gustav Jung, which contains the memories and cultural heritage of all mankind. The universal and primordial structures in the collective unconscious, or archetypes, are mythological in nature. Experiences that include an archetypal element of the psyche contain a sense of the sacred, sacred, which is not an individual, personal, but a supra-individual, transpersonal, and in this sense, a transcendent level of human consciousness.

For many, this is indisputable, unconditional knowledge. It has penetrated consciousness: we know that we know. For others, such knowledge does not manifest itself in consciousness, it is deep in the unconscious. One thing is obvious: all these processes have a life of their own, they can be considered independently, outside of religious experience. Often this is called faith, which is the belief in the certainty of something without the mediation of the senses or the logical train of thought: by inexplicable certainty (apparently, faith differs from personal knowledge in that it is associated with religious awareness). Another thing is that this knowledge comes in the process of spiritual experience, not necessarily associated with religious quests. Non-traditional cognitive mechanisms, inseparable from the expansion of consciousness, which we explore, are associated with figurative-sensory vision. This is a spontaneous process. In any case, such knowledge is not Plato's "proven true belief" but Jung's "prototype of the unconscious, an irrational given that simply is."

We have come to a fundamentally important aspect of the study, concerning the non-traditional cognitive mechanism associated with the acquisition of knowledge and the assessment of the role of consciousness in this process. How does a person produce, receive uncodified knowledge? A person does not receive such knowledge from outside, they are the result of self-knowledge, are extracted from the depths of one's own Self: everything is in me, nothing outside, but outside is the same as in me. It can be said that a person descends into the depths of himself and at the same time rises above himself. It was well known in ancient cultures. Let's take the Indian epic "Upanishads": "The Spirit that is here in man, and the Spirit that is there in the Sun - look, this is the One Spirit, and there is no other." Or Zen Buddhism: "The realm of awakening is not an external sphere with clear, distinct signs ... it is a realm of sacred knowledge in yourself." “Consciousness whole, radiating Light, permeates the entire Universe. It is within you and does not come from outside. As the poets wrote about this, the holy fathers - the first Christians: “Try to enter into your inner cell and you will see the cell of Heaven. Both the first and the second are one: with one entrance you enter both. ladder in Heavenly Kingdom is within you: it exists mysteriously in your soul. Immerse yourself into yourself from sin, and you will find in yourself the steps by which you can make the ascent... He who concentrates the sight of the mind within himself sees in himself the dawn of the Spirit.” These thoughts are separated by centuries and millennia, but they are expressed in almost the same words. Everything here is sublime: a different picture of the world, different meanings of life, immersion in the Mystery.

All of the above allows us to draw the most important conclusion for our study: the expansion of consciousness beyond the limits of the Self (i.e., the removal of restrictions, the release of a huge potential lurking in its unknown areas beyond these limitations), the acquisition of deep, personal knowledge and its integration into the general structure of cognitive process is a single system based on other, non-traditional cognitive mechanisms, which are based on a creative act. The process of cognition itself is changing, not I - the subject cognizes an object external to me, on the contrary, this process is holistic, holistic in nature, allows you to merge with the cognizable, and therefore penetrate into its very essence, see it from the inside. Such knowledge takes place within our deep, spiritual experience, direct experience of this experience (one might say, spiritual realities), and with it inner comprehension. This non-rational, mindless, supersensory sensation is implicit knowledge. At the same time, science itself turns into an interconnected complex of rational and non-rational, implicit knowledge.

This study indicates that fundamentally new cognitive mechanisms invading modern science, are directly related to human consciousness: the mechanisms of cognition and our consciousness are phenomena of the same order, interconnected and interdependent. Non-traditional mechanisms of cognition are unrealizable without deep penetration into the sphere of consciousness, and the sphere of consciousness expands without limit and provides unlimited opportunities for understanding the world. Cognition occurs in the process of spiritual experience directly experienced by a person, he is a part of this experience and constitutes a unity with the knowable. Each experience expands consciousness, and so on ad infinitum. And one more very important question. Why does a person change in the process of experiencing experience? Because his self-knowledge deepens, inner growth takes place, his own Self is revealed, and these are the paths leading to the realization of the Highest in oneself.

It is obvious that, despite the predominantly rational nature of the mechanisms of scientific knowledge, deep, personal knowledge, intuition, as a result of spiritual experience, occupy a large place in science. This study indicates that their role will increase, they will become an officially recognized component of the scientific cognitive mechanism. The new apparatus of scientific knowledge does not require formalization, verbal expression of inner experience, hidden knowledge of a scientist, as is done, for example, within the framework of the procedure for managing the personal knowledge of employees large companies in order to improve the efficiency of the organization. In science, only the scientist himself can formalize his own personal knowledge, inscribing it in the context of his analysis, thoughts and reasoning. Based on the integration of his internal, super-rational and traditional rational knowledge, a scientist himself must formulate the results of his own perception of reality as he sees, feels, guesses them.

This is a mechanism of awareness that contributes to the transformation of knowledge obtained in a non-rational way, outside the field of scientific thinking, i.e. translating it into the realm of the conscious and integrating it with knowledge of a rational order (one very important question arises here: is it always possible to integrate personal, direct knowledge with knowledge obtained in a rational way?). He knows that he knows because he feels a connection between himself and the new reality, and this is not just a connection, but a unity. Academician V.I. Vernadsky: “The sources of the most important aspects of the scientific worldview arose outside the field of scientific thinking. Such concepts as atoms, ether, inertia, the infinity of the world, force, etc. arose from ideas and ideas that were alien to scientific thought. The number entered science from music. The idea of ​​world harmony from the Rigveda… Separation of science from religion, philosophy, social life, art is impossible – they are closely intertwined” (Vernadsky V.I. Proceedings on the General History of Science. M.: Nauka, 1988).

There is a question. It is known that knowledge is capable of existence only in the presence of developed institutional control, i.e. institute of expertise, which determines whether certain data can be attributed to knowledge. Such an institution turns out to be a specially appointed expert, a team, publications in relevant publications, and other forms. And the proposed model of the cognitive process does not require institutional expertise for the possibility of classifying certain data as knowledge.

Implicit knowledge has nothing to do with discursive, demonstrative knowledge, it is not a justified judgment, but spontaneous understanding. It is also called divine understanding (Zavadskaya E.V. Culture of the East in the modern Western world. M .: Nauka, 1977, p. 62), intuitive or spiritual revelation, or it can be considered as the result of the release of the huge potential of the unconscious (there is no conceptual apparatus) . Such knowledge is available in its original form only to its creator, any formalization distorts its deep meaning (as already mentioned). So only the bearer of knowledge can be an expert, a scientist who identifies incoming information, establishes its link to existing knowledge (which in no way means following the dogmas and limitations of everyday consciousness) and creates a visual sensual image of the reflected reality with inner vision.

The problem of linking intuition to existing knowledge obtained in a rational way is ambiguous. It turns out that the value of intuition is limited by certain limits, and these limits are its verification by the mind. The famous American philosopher William James writes about this that intuition serves as a completely independent and self-sufficient means of world perception, just as reason is one of the mechanisms for comprehending the world. Intuition is a special form of knowledge, closed to a sober mind, direct knowledge, conviction; it is stored in the depths of the human spirit, and logical argumentation is only a superficial manifestation of it. However, rational knowledge performs its function and the conclusions of the mind must be considered (James W. Variety of religious experience. M., 1993, p. 375). It seems that, since science will be formed as an indissoluble unity of the rational and the superrational, the link between the two types of knowledge will be realized one way or another. This will be the integral comprehension of truth.

On the other hand, who better than science to shake the generally accepted, successively established views and norms? Then what kind of binding can we talk about? If we talk about the economy, then perhaps we should not be guided by existing models and concepts at all, the world is changing very quickly, and then what can be taken as a starting point? In this situation, in its entirety, the problem arises not of what, but of how. Not what needs to be done (in this case, to bind the knowledge obtained in a non-rational way to fundamental principles and models), but how, in accordance with this knowledge, to provide conditions for reconfiguring the economy and society as a whole, their adaptation to new global challenges.

We can assume another version of the verification of implicit knowledge - external expertise, bearing in mind that the presented model of the cognitive process changes the very nature of the expertise. If knowledge is not obtained in a rational way, then its verification should be based on a special kind of expertise - irrational, which is no less a high creative act than the knowledge itself. Understanding is not required here, it is rather an inner feeling, recognition as something of one’s own, at least close, sitting in the depths of consciousness - a wave, a connecting thread, quite tangible in the noospheric cultural space, which the expert found or he found it. And that's all. This is enough to evaluate the work. Let's not forget that we are talking about expertise as a creative act. “Creativity raises above everyday life, helps to weaken dependence on it,” these are the words of one of the outstanding philosophers of the 20th century. Erich Fromm (Fromm E. To have or to be. M .: Nauka, 1990, p. 117).

A man of science cannot fail to understand what is meant. Each of us is familiar with this special state, a feeling of closeness, an inner experience when reading any scientific text - here it attracts a model of thinking, a hidden view, a felt subtext, an intuitive hypothesis that opens up to us, a perspective, maybe an idea outlined with strokes, etc.

Culture of thinking

The presentation of a certain concept is necessarily successive (i.e., built on the principle of linear sequence), while the understanding of its essence must be simultaneous (i.e., represent the simultaneous perception of all its constituent parts in their organic unity and integrity).

When the author starts work, at first he tries to give a systematic exposition of his theory "in order", starting from the basic concepts, from the foundation, and has the intention to gradually, step by step, methodically and consistently, erect the building of his theory. However, he later discovers that this linear "architectonic" model of presentation does not work. It turns out that from each point of presentation there are numerous branches and semantic connections to all other points. It turns out that there is no beginning and no end, no foundation and no upper floors, but there is a semantic volume, permeated with a great many connections and having a semantic core.

Further, it turns out that no part of the teaching can be fully understood in isolation from all others, and what is stated at the beginning of the book can be fully perceived only through the assimilation of all subsequent material.

These ideas were first expressed by the famous German philosopher of the 19th century, Arthur Schopenhauer, in his programmatic work The World as Will and Representation. According to Schopenhauer, the structure of any sufficiently deep and mature concept is not architectonic, but organic, that is, one in which each part supports the whole as much as it itself is supported by this whole; none of the parts is essentially the first and not the last ... "Based on these considerations, he draws an important practical conclusion:" In any science, a complete understanding of it is obtained only after its entire course has been completed and then returned to the beginning " . Following Schopenhauer, it can be argued that the deeper and more serious the concept is expounded, the less likely it is to be fully assimilated from the first reading. Serious books, as Schopenhauer advised, should be read at least twice.

Our time is completely unique and incomparable with any of the previous historical eras, primarily in terms of the incredible abundance of publicly available information. We really live in conditions of information super-abundance. However, this does not mean complete well-being at all, on the contrary, information superabundance gives rise to many intractable problems, in particular, the problem of information littering. The information bombarding our heads is both redundant, insufficient and contradictory. It can be argued that our era is developing not so much a creative as a tape recorder mind, in which memorization increasingly dominates understanding. The student more and more resembles a creature with a huge funnel inserted into his head, through which professors and associate professors pour in buckets of information.

The overestimation of the role of reading, which is very common in our society, contributes to a large extent to the violation of the optimal balance between the reception and processing of information. Reading and thinking are not always the same thing, reading is easier than thinking. As Marcel Proust wrote, "Reading cannot be recognized as a decisive role in our spiritual life", it can in no way replace personal intellectual activity. G. Lichtenberg adhered to the same opinion: “People who read a lot rarely make big discoveries. I say this not to justify laziness, but because discovery presupposes an independent contemplation of things: one should see more for oneself than repeat other people's words. He also says: “... the rapid accumulation of knowledge acquired with too little independent participation is not very fruitful. Scholarship, too, can only give birth to leaves, without bearing fruit.

According to contemporaries, Rene Descartes, the great Cartesius, before reading a book on a topic of interest to him, first figured out the main problem of this book by the introduction, after which he closed the book and then made an independent attempt to solve the problem. And only after that he turned to the book, comparing the results of the author with his own calculations. Usually this was perceived as evidence of his genius, while, on the contrary, his genius should be considered to a large extent a consequence of just such a style. cognitive activity.

So, from the point of view of intellectual development, even reading is secondary to one's own cognitive efforts. What can we say about the TV, which simply does not leave us any chances for normal development, for gaining the ability to think independently and efficiently. The fact is that the TV sets such a dense and intense flow of information that its parallel processing and full comprehension are practically excluded. This is the dramatic difference between watching TV and reading books. You can always put a book aside, pause and reflect on what you have read. Television does not provide us with such an opportunity. Hence the pronounced difference between the older generation, who grew up reading books, and the new generation, who grew up watching television.

Those who grew up on books have a higher educational level, a higher culture of thinking and speech culture, and a significantly higher verbal intelligence compared to those who grew up watching television. This pattern is quite objective and confirmed numerous studies. “Bookish” people are more able to think, while “television” people forget how to think and are only capable of passive perception, with an extremely low level of understanding of the information received.

productive development information system intelligence is carried out through learning and through creativity. In order for such development to take place in an optimal way, it is necessary to observe the correct ratio, the correct proportion between the flow of information from outside and its internal processing. The acquired knowledge must be assimilated, organized and streamlined, which is impossible without independent efforts to comprehend the information received. And such internal work should take place with the receipt of each new portion of knowledge. The essence of this internal work is the interconnection of the existing system of knowledge and newly received information. If there is no such internal harmonization, the creation of a consistent synthesis, then further input of new information will only disorganize thinking. As Herbert Spencer said, "If a man's knowledge is in a disorderly state, then the more he has of it, the more his thinking is upset." The optimal ratio between the flow of information from the outside and its internal processing is a variable. The more organized the knowledge system, the higher its consistency and integrity, the more appropriate will be the absorption of new information. On the contrary, the more disordered information has accumulated, the more important it is to reduce its reception and intensify its processing. Thus, it is necessary that the processing of information keep pace with its arrival, otherwise a person simply begins to face "indigestion of the head."

The process of absorption of information and the process of its processing can be considered as dialectical opposites. Intensive reception of information from the outside greatly complicates its parallel processing. The more new information, new ideas and concepts come in, the more often you have to stop entering information and stop to comprehend it. And, on the contrary, intensive internal processing of information is always accompanied by a concentration of attention on the inner world and disconnection from the outer. The well-known absent-mindedness of enthusiastic thinkers is the reverse side of the utmost concentration on the internal object. It is a well-known fact that a person absorbed in his own thoughts may not even hear the words addressed to him. Speaking in cybernetic language, the input of the system is blocked and this creates favorable conditions for the full internal processing of previously received information. The greater the depth of this processing, the better it is, the more time and effort it requires.

When reading specialized literature, listening to lectures, reports, etc., the processing of information primarily serves the reception and for this reason is more superficial and less intensive than processing in the absence of new information from the outside. The work of thought in the mode of autonomy (when there is not an open book in front of you, but a blank sheet of paper) is also more adequate both to the goals you set and to the existing cognitive structures. Usually, the goals of the author of the book under study and his intellectual interests only partially coincide with ours; his vision of the world and his language also differ to some extent, and sometimes quite significantly, from ours. In the mode of autonomy, we can work in our own cognitive interests, our thought can move in the direction we have chosen, without being forced to follow the shadow of the author's reasoning. In addition, in autonomous mode, we can freely work in terms of our own intellectual experience. All this contributes to a more focused, deeper and efficient processing previously received information. It can be argued that the optimally constructed process of developing an information system of intelligence should be cyclic, pulsating in nature and consist of two cycles: the cycle of information absorption and the cycle of its internal processing. Based on this simple and uncomplicated idea, it is possible to propose a highly fruitful methodology, equally suitable for both learning and creativity (between the two, in fact, the border is very arbitrary). This methodology is based on the principle of separating in time the process of receiving new information and the process of processing the acquired knowledge. At one time, the American scientist A. Osborne proposed the “brainstorming” method, the main principle of which was to separate the process of generating new ideas from the process of their critical evaluation. Separation in time of these two processes interfering with each other turned out to be very effective. No less effective, in my opinion, is the principle of separating the reception of information from its processing. Of course, the separation of the reception and processing of information in this context should be understood in the sense of a different target orientation at different stages of the creative process. In a strict psychological sense, the process of receiving information is always accompanied by its processing, moreover, it is carried out through processing. This takes place even in the process of ordinary perception (visual or auditory), not to mention the reception of semantic information. Another thing is that this processing can be of different depth and intensity. The same is true for the brainstorming principle. Here we can only speak of a relative separation in time between the generation of ideas and their critical examination. Thinking is inherently selective and there can be no complete absence of criticism. We are talking only about the weakening of the critical component in the structure creative activity at the stage of generating new ideas.

The organization of the creative cycle should include the following two stages, forming a closed ring, in which the second stage follows after the first, and the first again after the second. This is the stage of information autonomy and the stage of intensive reception of new information.

1. Stage of information autonomy. At this stage, there is no reception of information from outside. Temporarily stops reading special literature, discussing the problem with colleagues. During this period, a creative person can be likened to a chicken hatching an egg - no running around the chicken coop, no clucking. Work on the problem is carried out in full autonomy and complete independence. At this time, we operate only with what we can extract from our own memory, without going beyond its limits into the information environment. At the stage of primary autonomy, the following goals are pursued:

a) statement of the problem (formulation of the problem, its clarification and concretization);

b) registration of the most important and valuable information in the form of brief abstracts, in a form convenient for their review as components of a single whole;

d) creation of cognitive motivation, cognitive dominant.

Even if the problem is not resolved at this stage, nevertheless, the information space of the task develops from the initial stage of the “amorphous spot” to some level of its structuring. As a result, open connections of this structure are revealed, and a powerful energy potential is created at their free ends in the form of burning issues that require prompt resolution.

Criteria for moving to the second stage:

a) the problem is formulated in a clear, precise and sufficiently specific form (as opposed to the initial vagueness);

b) independent work has reached a dead end, internal resources have been exhausted;

c) the results of the work done (both in terms of clarification and concretization, and in terms of its solution) are formalized in writing.

This is important because there is a big difference between just thinking and writing your own thoughts. The latter requires much more effort and energy, but it gives a concrete result. The elaboration of the problem posed in writing is much deeper and more intensive, not to mention the fact that we get specific creative output, even if it is rough and very imperfect. Otherwise, creativity degenerates into empty talk and pleasant, but non-committal reasoning. In such cases, "all the steam goes into the whistle" and no real progress is made. Chatting is easy, writing is difficult.

d) there is a cognitive dominant, manifested in ardent interest and high cognitive activity in relation to the problem being developed (for which it is important to "torment" the problem properly).

2. The stage of intensive reception of pertinent (relevant) information. At this stage, there is active search pertinent information in the surrounding information environment (reading specialized literature, discussing the problem with colleagues, etc.). The fruitfulness of this stage depends on the degree of completion of the previous one. New knowledge is perceived in a completely different way if its acquisition was preceded by serious independent work: there is an active search for answers to pressing questions. R. Tagore once said that answering a person when he did not ask a question is the same as feeding him when he is not hungry.

The main goal of this stage is to search for a new constructive idea that allows you to look at the problem from a different angle. The criterion for the completion of the second stage is the emergence of new information that requires the reorganization of the existing system of views and opens up new opportunities. After the appearance of such new information, a return to work in autonomy mode follows, but at a higher level. Then the cycle is repeated until an acceptable result is obtained. The development of the information system of intelligence can be likened to the pulsating movement of a jellyfish, in which the stage of expansion alternates with the stage of contraction, due to which there is an abrupt forward movement.

Philosophy distinguishes two different types: sensual and rational.

The first type is associated with the activity of our sense organs (sight, hearing, touch). The second implies the work of the mind - the abstract-conceptual thinking of a person.

The main forms of sensory cognition: sensations, perceptions, representations.

1. sensation - an elementary mental process, consisting in capturing the individual properties of objects and phenomena of the material world at the time of their direct impact on our senses.

2. perception - a holistic reflection in the mind of objects and phenomena with their direct impact on the senses. Naib important features of perception: objectivity, integrity and structure.

3. representation - images of objects preserved by memory that once acted on the senses. Unlike sensations and perceptions, representations do not require direct contact of the sense organs with the object.

Rational knowledge basically comes down to conceptual abstract thinking. Abstract thinking is a purposeful and generalized reproduction in an ideal form of essential and regular properties, connections and relationships of things. The main forms of rational knowledge: concepts, conclusions, hypotheses, theories.

1. concept - a mental formation, in which objects of a certain class are generalized by determining the totality of features. Generalization is carried out at the expense of abstraction, i.e., abstraction from non-essential, specific features of objects. Unlike sensations and perceptions, concepts are devoid of sensual, visual originality.

2. judgment - a form of thought in which, through the connection of concepts, something is affirmed or denied.

3. inference - a reasoning in the course of which a new judgment is deduced from one or several judgments, logically following from the first ones.

4. hypothesis - an assumption expressed in concepts, with the aim of giving a preliminary explanation to any fact or group of facts. A theory confirmed by experience is transformed into a theory.

5. theory - the highest form of organization of scientific knowledge, giving a holistic view of the patterns and essential connections of a certain area of ​​reality.

The concept of intellect is connected with rational cognition. Intelligence is understood as a person's ability to think, as an individual training of the brain, the spiritual potential of the individual. A feature of the process of cognition is that it includes 2 levels. In the process of cognition, the intellectual characteristics of a person are revealed. Often the process of cognition is associated with intuition - the unconscious acquisition of knowledge. It can be sensual and rational. Intuition is often understood as the unity of logical and psychological mechanisms for obtaining knowledge.

Intuition was sometimes interpreted as something mysterious and almost supernatural. First of all, intuition is a function of a thorough mastery of the subject.

1 intuition, as a rule, is associated with a long preliminary work on the problem, often it takes place when, it would seem, all the logical reserves of the search have been exhausted.

2, apparently, in the mechanism of intuition, the unconscious plays a significant role, at the level of which, so to speak, separate links of the logical chain “get stuck”.

3 a certain role in the intuitive breakthrough is played by the presence of "hints". So, the observation of the web between the branches gave impetus to the birth of the idea of ​​a suspension bridge.

More on sensual and rational cognition. The role of intuition in the cognitive process.:

1. The nature of ancient Greek civilization and features of the ancient philosophical tradition
2. Philosophy and Science: The Problem of Self-Determination of Philosophy in New European Culture
3. Structure and main characteristics of the cognitive process
4. SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE IN MODERN TIMES (17th CENTURY): SEARCH FOR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY; REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE, MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS.
5. 25. Sensual and rational knowledge, their specificity and relationship. Philosophical teachings of sensationalism and rationalism. The role of intuition in cognition.

Intuition was most often used as a means to substantiate various idealistic philosophical systems, and in each specific case, the content invested in this concept acquired a different meaning. The problem of intuition is a joint problem that has become the subject of study of such sciences as philosophy, psychology, physiology of higher nervous activity, and others. Hence - different approaches to the development of the problem and the numerous meanings of the concept of "intuition". For a long time, irrationalism had an actual monopoly on intuition, declaring it a mysterious, supernatural way of comprehending the truth, not amenable to any rational solution. The facts connected with the activity of intuition are indeed "so variegated and varied that one can fall into despair when trying to give them a materialistic interpretation and bring them under some general rule, reveal any general principle and the law to which they are all subject.

* (Ilyenkov E. On the aesthetic nature of fantasy. - In the book: Questions of aesthetics. M., 1964, p. 69.)

The ambiguity of the term "intuition" is connected not only with the complexity of the subject of study itself, but also to a certain extent with the fact that "the subject itself has long been a feeding trough of charlatans. Only those scientists whose curiosity outweighs the concern about maintaining reputation" * .

* (Bunge M. Intuition and science. M., 1967, p. 124.)

As a result, there are as many theories of intuition as there are different epistemological directions. The history of the philosophical thought of mankind is especially rich in the latter. Representatives of the most diverse, unrelated areas of knowledge, trying to analyze the mechanisms of their creative process, have repeatedly pointed out the huge heuristic role of intuition in it. At the same time, how many scientists - so many opinions and definitions. Naturally, it is impossible to list here all the available statements on this subject. And it is unlikely that such an attempt could be fruitful. It seems to us that those researchers who consider it possible to consider intuition only by the results of its action, by the statements, memories, descriptions of scientists, leaving aside the question of its nature, of the objective causes that give rise to it, will ultimately find themselves in a dead end. If the analysis of intuition is carried out only by the final products of the scientist's creative activity, then this just gives imaginary grounds for attributing exceptional "phenomenal" properties to it.

No matter how long the list of causes that led to the existing confusion, as well as the list of the definitions themselves, in the end we will still come to the conclusion that main reason lies in the characterization of the epistemological roots of idealism. As V. I. Lenin wrote, "philosophical idealism is unilateral, exaggerated ... development (bloating, swelling) of one of the lines, sides, facets of knowledge into the absolute, torn off from matter, from nature, deified" * .

* (Lenin V.I. Full. coll. cit., vol. 38, p. 322.)

In such an "absolute" and was erected on long time intuition. Torn out of the general system of the cognitive process, studied without taking into account the laws of cognition, the phenomenon of intuition was turned into a tool for substantiating idealism and mysticism. Gradually, as a result of a fierce struggle with idealism, dialectical materialism approved a qualitatively new view of intuition as a form of the cognitive process.

The idea of ​​intuition as a specific form of the cognitive process, characterized by unconsciousness, immediacy, suddenness, is widespread in modern philosophical literature (V. F. Asmus, A. A. Nalchadzhyan, Ya. A. Ponomarev). These characteristics are undoubtedly important in revealing the nature of intuition, but they are neither specific nor exhaustive. And if we try to determine what intuition is only by the listed properties, then we will inevitably fall into a contradiction. Let us take any form of sensory knowledge, for example, perception. Is it really so incredible that it can be direct, sudden and at the same time unconscious? Consequently, these features are characteristic not only of intuition and therefore cannot be sufficient when trying to define it.

There are also more constructive definitions that reveal some specific features that are unique to intuition. This is a view of intuition as the ability to form visual representations of objects that are not perceived by direct observation (V. P. Bransky, Louis de Broglie). Intuition is also considered as a specific method of cognition, which consists in "jumping" through certain stages of logical reasoning, due to which the illusion of direct direct observation of the desired conclusion arises (IB Mikhailova). Intuition is also a special insightful ability to pose a problem, to predict the result of a study (S. I. Vavilov). Along with this, intuition is a form of human knowledge, expressed in a specific combination of sensual and rational moments (P.V. Kopnin).

In other words, intuition is declared to be a specific way of interaction between sensory and logical knowledge (A. Einstein). Great opportunities for intuitive comprehension of the truth, often leading to phenomenal results, give reason to consider intuition as the ability for unlimited rich imagination, more precisely, the ability to develop "crazy ideas" (D. I. Blokhintsev).

Despite the fact that the works of these authors are not specifically devoted to the development of the problem of intuition, nevertheless, it was they who, on the basis of specific empirical material, managed to identify important points, largely clarifying the epistemological nature of this phenomenon. Based on the above definitions, let's try to conduct a special epistemological analysis of intuition as a form of cognitive process.

A number of difficulties in studying the problem of intuition, as already noted, are due to the fact that other forms of human cognition can also proceed unconsciously, both sensory (sensation, perception, representation) and rational (comparison, analysis, synthesis, abstraction, concretization, respectively and unconscious receipt of new concepts, judgments and new conclusions). Apparently, the action of intuition is associated not only with the unconsciousness of certain forms of human cognitive activity, but also with the process of obtaining a certain kind of novelty.

Intuition, as well as other forms of cognition, is carried out unconsciously and is not an autonomous way of cognition, "bypassing sensation, representation and thinking." In other words, intuition exists only in the closest dialectical relationship with known forms of cognition, while performing an important function of their accelerated flow. However, all this does not make it possible to reveal one's own epistemological nature of intuition. Intuition is not an unconscious process, although it is based on an unconscious reflection. And its only difference from other forms of cognition, which we could name so far, is that intuition is always an unconscious process, although it tends to become aware.

The relationship of intuition with various forms of cognition essentially does not introduce anything new into epistemological analysis. Apparently, we should try to dwell in more detail on the question of the source of the action of intuition. After all, if such a form of cognition exists, and, as is known, the entire history of science testifies to this, it means that there is an objective source that ensures its operation.

In ancient times, a primitive man, by no means armed with knowledge of reality, unconsciously chooses and evaluates, and subsequently uses more essential properties and qualities inherent in this particular object. A huge amount of information enters the brain. And the further humanity develops, the more knowledge it acquires in its subject-practical activity, the more the flow of information increases.

Most of the information received remains unused, but is imprinted in our brain for a long time in the form of associative links. "Of the total amount of knowledge available in each this moment only a small fraction of them shines in the focus of consciousness. Some of the information stored in the brain is not even known to people.

In the regulation of human behavior, many impressions received in early childhood and firmly settled in the depths of the unconscious psyche" * .

* (Spirkin A. G. Consciousness and self-consciousness. M., 1972, p. 188.)

The stock of acquired knowledge creates an unlimited reserve of human knowledge. As a result, the source of intuitive knowledge appears in the form of knowledge hidden from the subject himself, but already available to him. Let's call it cryptognose(from Greek kryptos - secret, hidden and gnosis - knowledge).

Apparently, it is in the field of cryptognoses, which is the result of unconscious reflection, that the epistemological nature of intuition is hidden. Under cryptognostic This refers to temporarily unconscious knowledge obtained from the direct interaction of a person with the objective world, including all the previous experience of the subject, but not used by him before. This hidden area is nothing but an objective source of the inexhaustible possibilities of human consciousness.

As a result of interaction with the objective world, a person receives not only the knowledge he needs at the moment about objective reality, but also some additional amount of information, to which he turns later and which makes it possible in the process of scientific creativity to successfully rely on predictions, foresights, forecasts, to apply to such methods of modern physical research as analogy and hypothesis. Quite often, data related to areas of knowledge that are not directly related to the subject of research are extracted from the arsenal of cryptognoses. Cryptognose is a kind of encrypted knowledge. And the key to it is in intuition.

The volume of cryptognoses is determined by two factors: 1. The total amount of knowledge acquired by mankind at this stage of historical practice. 2. The amount of knowledge that a particular scientist has.

Only on the basis of these factors is it possible to accumulate cryptognoses. The latter differs from available knowledge in that its accumulation and use occur through unconscious and intuitive processes.

In other words, what we attribute to cryptognose is the possibilities of his cognitive functions hidden from the scientist, this is part of the knowledge and information about the world around him, the presence of which he himself does not even suspect until a certain moment. Figuratively speaking, we can never know everything we know. A person is not able to determine the amount of knowledge imprinted in the recesses of his consciousness as a result of interaction with the objective world. Hence the unlimited, sometimes fantastic possibilities of our intuition.

Introduced concept cryptognose, as it seems to us, makes it possible to clarify the relationship between unconscious and unconscious processes.

At the level of the unconscious accumulation cryptognoses. At the intuitive level (through various forms intuitions, which will be discussed later) is carried out usage cryptognoses, i.e. by unconscious choice - extracting from the total amount of accumulated knowledge what is necessary for a given stage of research. Looking ahead, we can say that the primary result of these processes is direct knowledge, which is further subjected to transformation.

So, the objective source of the action of intuition is cryptognose. The use of the latter refers to a special specific area of ​​knowledge - to intuitive knowledge. Intuitive cognition is understood as the sphere of cognition, where the process of accumulation and transformation of knowledge is carried out through various forms of intuition, acting at the level of unconscious interaction of sensory and logical cognition. It should be noted that intuition as a form of cognitive process is expressed in two main points. Their separation is fundamental: it leads to contradictory and ambiguous interpretations of intuition.

Firstly, intuition is the ability of human consciousness to an accelerated, sudden transition from old forms of knowledge to new ones, which is based on previous historical practice and the individual experience of the researcher.

Secondly, intuition is a specific way of interaction between the sensory and the logical in cognition, based on the use of cryptognosy data, and the results of its action can act as a certain kind of knowledge, called "intuitive knowledge" and used in science, taking into account subsequent experimental verification.

The first definition refers to the analysis of intuition as a kind of psychological phenomenon. The second - to epistemological analysis.

So intuition is specific shape cognitive process. Through its various forms, the interaction of sensory and logical knowledge is carried out. The epistemological functions of intuition consist in a kind of combinatorics of available knowledge with data from cryptognoses and the subsequent transformation of the new knowledge obtained into the status of scientific. Thus, the action of intuition extends to the level of scientific knowledge, more precisely, its result - intuitive knowledge is an important component of the process of obtaining new scientific knowledge.

The epistemological analysis of the intuitive form of the cognitive process involves the elucidation of the relationship "between the knowledge available at the beginning of the intuitive act and the knowledge obtained as a result of this act, as well as the identification of the essence of the epistemological mechanism by which the transformation of the "old" (initial) knowledge into the new takes place" *.

* (Karmin A.S., Khaykin E.P. Creative intuition in science. M., 1971, p. 25.)

In accordance with the tasks set, the main content of the presented concept is that intuition appears in cognition as a process and as a result. The epistemological analysis of intuition as a process is reduced to the analysis of the action of its various forms in human cognitive activity. As a result, intuition appears in the form of "intuitive knowledge".

Before proceeding to further analysis, let us dwell on the question of classifying the forms of intuition.

Most often, researchers refer to the classification proposed by Mario Bunge. The contradictory attitude to this classification, which takes place in our literature, encourages us to consider it in detail.

"When we do not know exactly which of the listed mechanisms played a role, when we do not remember the premises or are not clearly aware of the sequence of inference processes of inference, or if we have not been systematic and rigorous enough, we are inclined to say that all this was a matter of intuition. Intuition is a collection of rubbish where we dump all intellectual mechanisms about which we do not know how to analyze them or even how to name them exactly, or those whose analysis and name do not interest us, "* , writes Bunge. He considers the most commonly used meanings of the term intuition, such as quick perception, imagination, abbreviated reasoning, and sound judgment. Bunge distinguishes primarily sensual and intellectual intuitions.

* (Bunge M. Intuition and science, p. 94.)

Sensual intuition, according to Bunge, has the following forms:

1. intuition as perception.

A. Intuition as Perception Expressed in Process fast identification object, phenomenon or sign.

B. Clear understanding of meaning and relationship or sign.

B. Ability to interpret.

2. intuition as imagination.

A. The faculty of representation or geometrical intuition.

B. The ability to form metaphors: the ability to show the partial identity of features or functions, or the complete formal or structural identity of otherwise different objects.

B. Creative imagination.

Bunge classifies intellectual intuition (intuition as reason) as follows:

1. intuition as intelligence.

A. Accelerated inference - a rapid transition from one statement to another, sometimes with a quick slip of individual links.

B. Ability to synthesize or generalized perception.

IN. Common sense- a judgment based on ordinary knowledge and not based on special knowledge or methods, or limited to the passed stages of scientific knowledge.

2. Intuition as Evaluation.

A. Sound judgment, phronesis (practical wisdom), insight or penetration: the ability to quickly and correctly assess the importance and the significance of the problem, the plausibility of the theory, the applicability and reliability of the method, and the usefulness of the action.

B. Intelligent intuition as a normal way of thinking.

These, according to Bunge, are the main varieties of intuition. The author makes an attempt to systematize the most commonly used meanings of intuition among the endless hierarchy of interpretations of this concept. However, its systematization is not always consistent.

The main goal of Bunge's entire study is to reveal the enormous heuristic role of intuition as a necessary moment in the process of the scientist's cognitive activity. In this regard, his work is of known value. Thanks to this study, the main approaches to the study of the problem are outlined, providing a constructive attitude towards the latter. According to Bunge, this constructive approach includes:

1. Careful analysis of the numerous meanings of the term "intuition" and careful use of it.

2. Empirical and theoretical analysis of intuition within the framework of scientific psychology.

3. Refinement of the results of intuition through classifying, enriching and clarifying the development of concepts *.

* (Bunge M. Intuition and science, p. 150-151.)

These three positions are really important in the development of the problem under study. But the classification of types of intuition proposed by Bunge does not fully meet these requirements.

The problem of classifying intuition is one of the most difficult points in the study of the problem as a whole. This is due to the fact that the object itself, which is subjected to the operation of classification, is not subject to the action of the rules necessary, say, for a formal classification. Any formal classification presupposes, first of all, a clear, sharp separation of the objects of one group from the objects of another group. The result of such a classification should be the establishment of some order in the arrangement of these groups themselves, although in this case the established order is often artificial and arbitrary. Classification based on formal principles implies some kind of distribution into groups, which is based on the similarity of the objects of each group due to the presence of a common property. It is quite clear that intuition is not amenable to formal classification, since we can only talk about clarifying the concept and systematizing this field of knowledge in order to facilitate orientation in it. Establishing a clear similarity and difference between the varieties of intuition does not seem appropriate.

Unlike formal, meaningful classifications are based on dialectical principles. In meaningful classifications, the main emphasis is on the disclosure of internal patterns between groups of classified objects. Meaningful classifications correspond to natural classifications. The latter are based on taking into account the totality of the characteristics of the classified object, taken in their mutual connection and the conditionality of one of them (derivatives) by others (the main determinants). Apparently, this way of classifying can be applied to the problem of intuition.

Thus, classification is a special method of scientific research, subject to certain rules and based on a clearly formulated principle. Bunge's classification does not correspond to any of the considered methods of classification.

Bunge takes as the basis of his classification the species division of various intuitions that take place in the process of scientific creativity, choosing from the general hierarchy those that are most often used by researchers. Bunge chooses the concept kind of intuition. A species (or genus) is the essence of abstraction and exists in individual objects or phenomena without taking into account the relationship with other objects, phenomena and processes. In logical science, a view is a category that expresses relations between classes (in particular, between the volumes of concepts). According to Bunge, intuition is a kind or kind of knowledge, "an amazing mixture of experience and reason." Carrying out the initial division of this general concept of "kind of intuition", Bunge introduces the types of sensual and intellectual intuition.

What happens next is essentially a systematization of the various "natural usages" of intuition. Thus, the classification carried out by Bunge, despite the value of the study as a whole, cannot claim to solve the problem.

In our opinion, the most successful research in our literature is the work of A. S. Karmin and E. P. Khaikin "Creative intuition in science." The authors propose a "subdivision" of intuition into two forms: "eidetic" and "conceptual". It differs from the division into sensory and intellectual "by a narrower and more rigorous understanding of the epistemological content of different types of intuition" * .

* (Karmin A.S., Khaikii E.P. Creative intuition in science, p. 33.)

Conceptual intuition is the process of forming new concepts on the basis of previously available visual images. Eidetic intuition is the construction of new visual images based on previously existing concepts. Both of these subdivisions are different forms of scientific intuition, i.e., different forms of interaction between sensory and logical knowledge.

At least three important circumstances allow us to consider the considered variant of the classification as the most acceptable for further analysis.

1. The division of intuition into eidetic and conceptual allows us to explore its specificity in comparison with the known forms of sensory and logical cognition.

2. The proposed version of the classification is designed specifically for epistemological analysis and is not a conditional division, but a kind of working scheme of research, freed from the need for a phenomenological description of mysterious intuitive effects.

3. Based on this scheme, we get the opportunity not only to state the fact of the existence of intuition as a form of cognitive process, but to proceed to the analysis of its actual manifestations in the field of scientific knowledge.

Of great importance in the process of cognition are such factors as imagination, fantasy, emotions, etc. Among them, a particularly important role is played by intuition(sudden insight) - the ability of direct, immediate comprehension of the truth without evidence. In a broad sense, intuition is understood as a link between the unconscious and consciousness, a moment in the interaction of the subject and the object, which leads to the transition of elements from the area of ​​the unconscious, mental into the area of ​​consciousness. Intuition is peculiar to each person, only it manifests itself in different ways. There is also such a thing as "creative intuition". This is such a moment in the interaction of the subject and the object, which leads to a qualitatively new, previously unknown knowledge, to original solutions, inventions, and discoveries. The main characteristic properties of intuition are:

suddenness, surprise and chance;

immediacy: without reliance on logical evidence;

unconsciousness of the ways and means that led to this result.

In the history of philosophy, the important role of intuition in the process of cognition has been pointed out by many thinkers. Thus, Descartes believed that to implement the rules of his rationalistic method, intuition is necessary, with the help of which the first beginnings are seen.

Intuition was considered the only reliable means of cognition by supporters of such a philosophical trend of the 20th century as intuitionism. A. Bergson, opposing intellect to intuition, showed the latter by a genuine philosophical method, in the process of applying which a direct fusion of the object with the subject occurs. Associating intuition with instinct, he noted that it is characteristic of the artistic model of cognition, while in science intelligence, logic, and analysis dominate. If in Husserl's phenomenology intuition is, first of all, "essential vision", "idealization", direct contemplation of the general, then in Freud it is a hidden, unconscious first principle of creativity.

The ratio of rational and irrational, intuitive and discursive sides of knowledge was interpreted by Russian philosophers - intuitionists in a peculiar way. So, S. L. Frank, pointed to the inseparable connection of the rational with the opposite moment - the irrational. According to N. O. Lossky, intuitionism eliminates the opposition between knowledge and being.

Intuition means direct comprehension without prior logical proof. In intuition, the unity of the sensual and the logical is manifested: a person, on the basis of experience and existing knowledge, receives a sudden solution to a problem over which he had previously unsuccessfully pondered for a long time. It seems to him that such a decision came to him quite spontaneously, suddenly.

An intuitive decision is often preceded by some minor external push. It is known that an apple that fell from a tree on Newton's head was the reason for the discovery of the law of universal gravitation, and Archimedes, who was bathing in a bath, suddenly came to the conclusion that the buoyancy force is equal to the weight of the liquid in the volume of the body immersed in it. Particularly often, intuitive guesses visit a person during his transition from sleep to the state of wakefulness (A. G. Spirkin).

Intuition is a complexly structured process that includes both rational and sensual elements, which served as the basis for classifying it as a special form of cognition. The productive function of intuition is confirmed by a large number of facts, often exotic and even funny, from the history of scientific, technical and artistic creativity. At the same time, it should be noted that intuitively obtained solutions are not always included in the existing knowledge system.

Firstly, due to the lack of evidence and subordination to conservative common sense; secondly, due to the first circumstance, intuition by itself, without additional empirical and theoretical arguments, is insufficient for constructing and evaluating scientific theories. Therefore, in general, the development of knowledge (especially scientific) follows the path of liberation from intuitively made decisions, bringing them to logically derivable statements, clarifications and confirmations based on experience and accumulated theoretical knowledge.

Cognition is not just an activity, but a creative activity, creativity. Creation can be defined as human activity, which results in the transformation of the natural and social world in accordance with the goals and needs of man on the basis of the objective laws of reality.

The science of studying creativity is called heuristics. Creativity is a creative activity that resists destruction, although creativity can include moments of destruction (eliminate inhibitory factors, make room for the new). It acts as a productive activity, that is, it is capable of producing something new, in contrast to reproductive activity, in which the known is reproduced. The results of creativity are useful (valuable) and new (original).

The creative process in cognition begins with the recognition of the need for innovation (solving a problem, obtaining the necessary knowledge) and ends with the creation of a new, mostly intellectual education designed to satisfy this need. Following the concretization of the social order (in the form of a problem, task), the main contradictions that hinder the achievement of the goal are clarified. The culminating moment of the creative process is the advancement of an idea that concentrates the knowledge achieved, and at the same time the assumption of an ideal result. Then the idea is tested, concretized, a program for its implementation in practice is created. The highest achievements of cognitive creative activity include scientific discoveries, technical inventions, social programs, etc.

Intuition and creativity defy formal logical description. But there are heuristic methods that are used to search for something new, requiring the mobilization of talent, memory, attention, and imagination of the subject. Heuristic techniques are: inductive reasoning - the transfer of knowledge obtained on the basis of the study of part of the phenomena to the entire class as a whole; reasoning by analogy is a vivid example of heuristic reasoning, which does not guarantee the achievement of truth, but at the same time is not an arbitrary assumption; mathematical modeling, etc. Philosophy as a whole has a heuristic character. Therefore, mastering its heights is one of the effective means of comprehending the secrets of intuition and creativity.

1. Introduction

2. Concept of intuition

3. Intuition in the history of philosophy

4. The role of intuition in cognition

5. Conclusion

Introduction

play an important role in acquiring new knowledge logical thinking, methods and techniques for the formation of new concepts, the laws of logic. But the experience of cognitive activity shows that ordinary logic in many cases is insufficient for solving scientific problems. An important place in this process is occupied by intuition, which gives cognition a new impulse and direction of movement.

The problem of intuition has a rich philosophical heritage. Few philosophical problems in their development have undergone such qualitative changes and have been analyzed by representatives of the most diverse fields of knowledge. The question of intuition often turned out to be the subject of a sharp struggle between representatives of materialism and idealism. A whole cycle of often mutually exclusive concepts formed around him.

Intuition, as a specific cognitive process that directly produces new knowledge, is just as universal, inherent in all people (albeit to varying degrees) ability, like feelings and abstract thinking. That is why the topic I have chosen seems relevant to me.

Intuition in the history of philosophy

Until the 18th - 19th centuries, intuition, its nature and mechanisms were the subject of exclusively philosophical (discursive, reasoning) research. At the end of the 19th century, the phenomenon of intuition began to penetrate into the area of ​​interest of psychologists, and, in accordance with the general direction of the development of psychology in this period, their approach to intuition is seen as a desire to find ways to experimentally model and study it. At the same time, concrete psychological studies of intuition are very few, in the first half of the 20th century they are carried out sporadically, more lively after the 60s, at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries they become noticeable against the background of general psychological problems. However, even today the number of psychological dissertations devoted to intuition is inferior to the number of philosophical dissertations on the same topic.

There are two global periods in the development of ideas about intuition:

1. Philosophical, from the VI century. BC. until the middle of the 19th century.

2. The period of specifically - psychological analysis of intuition on the basis of an objective-experimental method.

At the same time, a spiritual and religious trend in the understanding of intuition is developing, considering it as a mechanism of faith.

Philosophical period. The long history of the development of philosophical ideas about intuition even at the beginning of the 21st century does not allow us to state the unity of views on the problem. It is noteworthy that it was at the turn of the 20th – 21st centuries that the desire of philosophers to understand the phenomenon of intuition intensifies, as evidenced by the “surge” of dissertation research devoted to its analysis.

The roots of the philosophical understanding of intuition are seen in the views of the great philosophers of antiquity and the Middle Ages - Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine Aurelius, Thomas Aquinas.

The closest connection between medieval philosophy and religion leads to the fact that intuition begins to be regarded as a way of divine contemplation and illumination for the purpose of direct merging with God.

The phenomenon of intuition is discussed in detail by Augustine the Blessed (350-430), a representative of early Christian philosophy. In his epistemology (theory of knowledge), Augustine is an irrationalist: the human soul is a repository of reliable and true knowledge, because they are revealed to man through revelation. However, the Truth is revealed only when the soul is active. The main source of knowledge is Revelation, faith is higher than reason: "Believe in order to know."

To a certain extent, a new understanding of intuition in the idea of ​​the existence of two knowledges is presented by the outstanding representative of the scholastics of the late Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274). Thomas Aquinas tried to resist the emerging desire for an experimental study and explanation of nature. According to Aquinas, the soul is not only rational, but also conscious. However, there is another type of knowledge - through grace, which reveals divine secrets to man, which "cannot be proved by the power of the human mind."

The development of ideas about intuition in the Middle Ages was formed in connection with theological issues - faith and Divine Revelation. Intuition is not a kind of thinking, but a special experience, essentially ecstatic, a condition and a way of communicating with God. The empirically revealed experience of intuition as direct knowledge becomes the foundation of faith. At the same time, religious and philosophical teachings introduce new aspects and characteristics into the analysis of the phenomenon of intuition:

1. intuition as the ability of the soul to self-knowledge and, as a result, to self-revelation of the spirit

2. intuition as an intellectual ability that has a divine nature, creating general concepts

3. intuition as intentionality is a function of consciousness that gives the process of cognition a certain direction

4. intuition as a way of acquiring inner experience.

Note that the very phenomenon of intuition is understood as a special experience in which something is directly and directly revealed to a person, insight comes.

In the 17th - 18th centuries, the phenomenon of intuition for the first time becomes the subject of a special (still philosophical) analysis and is considered in connection with the knowledge of not God, but the world, in the epistemological aspect.

Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650), in his quest to find new precise and solid foundations for the sciences, continues in a certain sense the tradition of Aristotle, according to which intuition is understood as a kind of thinking.

In accordance with the views of R. Descartes, consciousness is an inner world that opens up to the direct observation of the person himself. At the same time, cognizability and awareness are attributes of the mental.

Descartes believes that mathematical axioms and a number of the most general concepts have a direct, a priori - intuitive given to the mind. Direct intuitive knowledge, according to Descartes, is the most reliable, guarantees of its accuracy and reliability are in the nature of human thinking, and the highest, most reliable intuition is a self-evident and indisputable principle of clear science.

The rationalistic understanding of Descartes' intuition is developed by Benedict Spinoza (163-1677) and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716).

Thus, the representatives of rationalism in philosophy, considering intuition as the most important component of the process of cognition and the highest rational ability, largely determined the further formation of views on the problem of intuition, both in philosophy and in psychology.

Representatives of German classical philosophy from Immanuel Kant to G. Fichte and F. Schelling also turn to the analysis of the phenomenon of intuition.

Kant argues that any universal theoretical knowledge is a priori, cannot be the result of a simple empirical generalization, it is pre-experimental and non-experiential. Intuition manifests itself as representations that are directly contemplated by a person - that which the cognitive ability of a person “adds” to what is perceived, “sets” the form. Only contemplation (intuition) has access to a holistic coverage of objects. Intuition also opens the inner world, contemplation by the soul of itself and its states.

In contrast to Kant and G. Fichte and F. Schelling emphasize the intellectual nature of intuition as a direct unconscious contemplation.

In English empirical psychology, which continues the tradition of discursive analysis of mental phenomena, there is no place for intuition: intuition was understood as a metaphysical category not subject to psychological analysis.

Concept of intuition

Intuition at the everyday level is characterized as flair, insight, subtle understanding, penetration into the very essence of something. In psychology, intuition is considered as a special kind of knowledge, as a specific ability, as a mechanism for creative activity.

When we do not know exactly which of the mechanisms played a role, when we do not remember the premises or are not clearly aware of the sequence of inference processes of inference, or if we have not been systematic and rigorous enough, we are inclined to say that it was all a matter of intuition. .

Philosophers define intuition as a direct, unsubstantiated by evidence comprehension, discretion (from Latin Intueri - closely, carefully look) of truth.

Depending on the scope of application, intuition is distinguished in everyday life ("common sense"), in science, philosophy, art (artistic intuition), in inventive activity (technical intuition), professional intuition (doctors, investigators, teachers, etc.).

There are various explanations for the phenomenon of intuition. But for all the differences, the connection of intuition with unconscious forms of mental activity is emphasized, although the specificity of intuition lies not in the very fact of unconsciousness, but in the cognitive, creative and evaluative functions of unconscious activity. At the intuitive level, all forms of sensibility (sensations, perceptions, memory, imagination, emotions, will ("sensory intuition")) and intellect, logical thinking ("intellectual intuition") are involved.

Consider the classification of forms of intuition proposed by Mario Bunge. Bunge distinguishes primarily sensual and intellectual intuitions.

Sense intuition has the following forms:

1. Intuition as perception.

• Intuition as perception is expressed in the process of rapid identification of an object, phenomenon or sign.

• Clear understanding of meaning and relationship or sign.

• Ability to interpret.

2. Intuition as imagination.

• The faculty of representation or geometric intuition.

• The ability to form metaphors: the ability to show the partial identity of features or functions, or the complete formal or structural identity of otherwise different objects.

• Creative imagination.

Bunge classifies intellectual intuition (intuition as reason) as follows:

1. Intuition as reason.

• Accelerated inference - a rapid transition from one statement to another, sometimes with a quick slip of individual links.

• The ability to synthesize or generalized perception.

• Common sense is a judgment based on ordinary knowledge and not based on special knowledge or methods, or limited to the passed stages of scientific knowledge.

2. Intuition as an assessment.

• Sound judgment, phronesis (practical wisdom), insight or penetration: the ability to quickly and correctly assess the importance and significance of a problem, the plausibility of a theory, the applicability and reliability of a method, and the usefulness of an action.

• Intellectual intuition as a normal way of thinking.

The classification carried out by Bunge, despite the value of the study as a whole, cannot claim to solve the problem.

A.S. Carmine and E.P. Khaikin in his book "Creative Intuition in Science" proposes a division of intuition into two forms: "eidetic" and "conceptual". It differs from the division into sensory and intellectual in a narrower and more rigorous understanding of the epistemological content of different types of intuition.

Conceptual intuition is the process of forming new concepts based on previously available visual images.

Eidetic intuition is the construction of new visual images based on previously existing concepts.

Both of these divisions are different forms of scientific intuition, i.e. various forms of interaction between sensory and logical knowledge.

The division of intuition into eidetic and conceptual allows us to explore its specificity in comparison with the known forms of sensory and logical cognition.

The variant of the classification proposed by Karmine and Khaikin is intended specifically for epistemological analysis and is not a conditional division, but a kind of working scheme of research, freed from the need for a phenomenological description of mysterious intuitive effects.

Based on this scheme, one can not only state the fact of the existence of intuition as a form of the cognitive process, but proceed to the analysis of its actual manifestations in the field of scientific knowledge.

The role of intuition in cognition

Intuitive cognition is understood as the sphere of cognition, where the process of accumulation and transformation of knowledge is carried out through various forms of intuition, acting at the level of unconscious interaction of sensory and logical cognition. It should be noted that intuition as a form of cognitive process is expressed in two main points. Their separation is fundamental: it leads to contradictory and ambiguous interpretations of intuition.

Firstly, intuition is the ability of human consciousness to an accelerated, sudden transition from old forms of knowledge to new ones, which is based on previous historical practice and the individual experience of the researcher.

Secondly, intuition is a specific way of interaction between the sensory and the logical in cognition, the results of which can act as a certain kind of knowledge, called "intuitive knowledge" and used in science, taking into account subsequent experimental verification.

The first definition refers to the analysis of intuition as a kind of psychological phenomenon. The second - to epistemological analysis.

So, intuition is a specific form of cognitive process. Through its various forms, the interaction of sensory and logical knowledge is carried out.

The epistemological functions of intuition consist in a kind of combinatorics of available knowledge with data hidden from the subject himself, but already available to him, and the subsequent transformation of the new knowledge obtained into the status of scientific. Thus, the action of intuition extends to the level of scientific knowledge, or rather, its result - intuitive knowledge is an important component of the process of obtaining new scientific knowledge.

The epistemological analysis of the intuitive form of the cognitive process involves the elucidation of the relationship between the knowledge available at the beginning of the intuitive act and the knowledge obtained as a result of this act, as well as the identification of the essence of the epistemological mechanism by which the "old" (initial) knowledge is transformed into the new.

So, the place of intuition in scientific knowledge is determined by the sphere of interaction between sensory and logical knowledge. Here the action of intuition as a process is manifested. This interaction could otherwise be called intuitive knowledge. The legitimacy of the allocation of this kind of knowledge, as well as sensory and logical, is due to the entire history of human knowledge.

Intuitive knowledge is an important area of ​​human knowledge, belonging to the field of both scientific and non-scientific knowledge.

According to V.R. Irina and A.A. Novikov, the most characteristic features of scientific intuition include:

• The fundamental impossibility of obtaining the desired result through sensory knowledge of the surrounding world.

• The fundamental impossibility of obtaining the desired result through direct logical inference.

• Unaccountable confidence in the absolute truth of the result (this in no way removes the need for further logical processing and experimental verification).

• Suddenness and unexpectedness of the result.

• Immediate evidence of the result.

• Unconsciousness of the mechanisms of the creative act, ways and methods that led the scientist from the initial formulation of the problem to the finished result.

• Extraordinary lightness, incredible simplicity and speed of the path traveled from initial premises to discovery.

• A pronounced feeling of self-satisfaction from the implementation of the process of intuition and deep satisfaction from the result.

So, everything that happens intuitively must be sudden, unexpected, directly obvious, unconsciously fast, unconsciously easy, outside of logic and contemplation, and at the same time in itself strictly logical and based on previous sensory experience. The epistemological functions of these processes are to carry out the interaction of sensory and logical knowledge.

The purpose of any kind of knowledge is the acquisition and transformation of knowledge. As you know, there are four types of knowledge transformation.

1. From some sensory images to other sensory images (sensory cognition).

2. From some concepts to other concepts (logical knowledge).

3. From visual images to a new concept (interaction of sensual and logical).

From concepts to new sensory visual images (interaction of the logical and the sensory).

3 and 4 types of transformation, thus, belong to the selected area of ​​intuitive knowledge.

The process of obtaining intuitive knowledge consists of the most complex combinations with sensory-visual images. The following two groups of images can be attributed to the types of sensory images between which the combination is performed: sensory-visual (direct perception, visual representation); conceptual (mental reproduction of previously obtained concepts, mental reproduction of the most general properties and essential aspects of the connections and relations of the objective world, inaccessible directly to the senses).

Scientific knowledge of any kind always has as its ultimate goal the acquisition of a new concept, i.e. new knowledge. Every scientific concept is ultimately a synthesis of the totality of sensory images.

So, the interaction of the sensory and the logical, carried out thanks to intuition, consists in a kind of combination of sensory images based on some initial concept. The result is a new concept about the object, new knowledge about its essence, and not just about the forms of manifestation.

The speed with which intuition operates is mysterious. A. A. Nalchadzhyan gives very convincing arguments to confirm the position that after the cessation of the conscious analysis of a scientific problem, the process of solving it continues in the subconscious sphere, that the corresponding electrophysiological processes also do not stop, but are transformed, continue to flow, but only with changed characteristics.

With this form of thinking, the thought process is significantly accelerated. An amazing phenomenon is observed: the possibility of processing 109 bits of information per second at the unconscious level, and only 102 at the conscious level. All this is an important prerequisite for the deployment of fast thought processes, for operating with a huge amount of "pure" information in the subconscious (unconscious) sphere. The subconscious mind is able to carry out a huge amount of work in a short time, which is beyond the power of consciousness in the same short period of time.

The relationship of the whole and the part, the system and the element is also introduced into the consciousness and the unconscious sphere of the human psyche in the form of a certain scheme or structure (in the most general form), putting on a psychological attitude to achieve harmony and perfection. The desire for harmony and beauty, carried out on a subconscious level, can serve as a decisive factor in choosing from a variety of options in favor of a more perfect one.

Individual cognition is peculiar, as is the specific and intuitive ability of each person, his life uniqueness; but through all this specificity, the social nature of the human personality manifests its action.

The general conditions for the formation and manifestation of intuition include the following:

1. thorough professional training of the subject, deep knowledge of the problem;

2. search situation, problem state;

3. the action of the subject of the search dominant on the basis of continuous attempts to solve the problem, strenuous efforts to solve the problem or task;

4. having a "hint".

The last point is not explicitly found in some cases. But a significant number of discoveries or inventions, as the history of science and technology shows, is associated with the action of a “hint”, which serves as a “trigger” for intuition.

The success of an intuitive solution depends on the extent to which the researcher has managed to get rid of the template, to be convinced of the unsuitability of previously known paths and at the same time to remain passionate about the problem, not to recognize it as unsolvable. The hint turns out to be decisive in freeing oneself from standard, stereotyped trains of thought. The specific form of the hint, those specific objects and phenomena that are used in this case, are an insignificant circumstance. Its general meaning is important. The idea of ​​a clue should be embodied in some specific phenomena, but in which ones it will not be a decisive factor.

Conclusion

Intuition appears in cognition as a process and as a result. The epistemological analysis of intuition as a process is reduced to the analysis of the action of its various forms in human cognitive activity. As a result, intuition appears in the form of "intuitive knowledge".

Consideration of the question of the possible mechanism and components of intuition allows us to see that intuition is not reducible to either sensory or abstract knowledge; it contains both forms of cognition, but there is also something that goes beyond these limits and does not allow it to be reduced to either one or the other form; it gives new knowledge, not attainable by any other means.

However, it should be remembered that, no matter how great the power of imagination and intuitive insight, they in no way oppose conscious and rational acts in cognition and creativity. All these essential spiritual forces of a person act in unity, and only in each specific act of creativity can one or the other prevail.

Bibliography

Asmus V.F. The problem of intuition in philosophy and mathematics. M., 1964