Truth is one or more incriminating facts.
G. Mencken
Truth is a delusion that has lasted for centuries. A delusion is a truth that has existed for only a minute.
C. Berne
Truth is a prejudice that has managed to become an axiom.
E. Hubbard
Truth destroys so many delusions and errors that all who live in untruth rise up and want to kill the truth. First of all, they attack its carrier.
O. Balzac
The ultimate truth is the beginning of her persecution.
G. Malkin
Truth and freedom are remarkable in that everything that is done for them and against them serves them equally.
V. Hugo
Poor truth. She is never like herself.
Alexey Arbuzov
Class truth is an absurd phrase. But it may be a class lie.
Nikolai Berdyaev
Truth is like a coquette, allowing only a glimpse of some of its charms to its seekers in order to excite them even more.
P. Buast
Truth is rarely pure and never unambiguous.
O. Wilde
Truth is born as heresy and dies as prejudice.
I. Goethe
Truth, like everything beautiful in this world, has its beneficial effect only on those who have experienced the cruel influence of lies. Truth is that hidden feeling that teaches us to enjoy life and makes us wish for this joy for all people.
D. Gibran
Any truth that is taken to heart by people with a limited spiritual outlook will inevitably be defended, spread and even applied in practice as if there is no other truth on earth, at least one that could limit it.
D. Mill
Any truth that is kept silent becomes poisonous.
F. Nietzsche
The most sublime truth tomorrow, in the light of a new thought, may seem trivial.
R. Emerson
Offensive truth is not at all superior to insulting lies.
Truth is not so beneficent as its appearance is harmful.
F. La Rochefoucauld
The first victim of injustice is always the truth, the truth.
D. Volkogonov
The opposite of truth is another truth.
J. Wolfrom
For truth, triumph is sufficient when it is accepted by a few, but worthy: to be pleasing to all is not its lot.
D. Diderot
The more banal the words sound, the more truth they contain.
author unknown
The version is a dog, with the help of which they seek the truth.
author unknown
Proclaiming the truth, offering something useful to the people is a sure way to provoke persecution.
Voltaire
The main obstacle to the knowledge of truth is not a lie, but a semblance of truth.
L. Tolstoy
It is much easier to find an error than the truth. The error lies on the surface, and you notice it immediately, but the truth is hidden in the depths, and not everyone can find it.
I. Goethe
In order for one person to discover a fruitful truth, it takes a hundred people to incinerate their lives in unsuccessful searches and sad mistakes.
D. Pisarev
If you want to know the truth about yourself, look for it from your enemies - they will tell you.
John Chrysostom
Each thought that he possessed the truth, and yet it remained equally hidden from them all to this day.
J. Boehme
Whoever seeks truth is not alien to error.
I. Goethe
People usually think that it is better to err in a crowd than to follow the truth alone.
K Helvetius
Our enemies are much closer to the truth in their judgments about us than we are ourselves.
F. La Rochefoucauld
There is nothing more disgusting than the truth if it is not on our side.
D. Halifax
Contradiction is the criterion of truth, the absence of contradiction is the criterion of error.
G. Hegel
The torch of truth often burns the hand of the one who bears it.
P. Buast
Thousands of paths lead to error, to the truth - only one.
J. J. Rousseau
Every truth has its limits of manifestation. So, for example, many sages say that time is money. But money is clearly not enough for those who have a lot of free money, for example, idlers.
V. Zubkov
The worst enemy of truth is often not lies, deliberate, inventive and dishonest, but myth - tenacious, plausible and fascinating.
D. Kennedy
To understand the truth, it must be suffered.
V. Zubkov
What, after all, are human truths? These are irrefutable human delusions.
F. Nietzsche
L. Chukovskaya
The greatest truths are the simplest.
L. Tolstoy
It is the simplest truths that a person comprehends the latest.
L. Feuerbach
Many great truths were first blasphemy.
B. Show
There are truths so obvious that it is impossible to hammer them into heads.
A. Mare
We speak paradoxes behind the impossibility of finding truths that are not banal.
J. Condorcet
People are dearest of all for neglecting banal truths.
F. Nietzsche
True words are not pleasant, pleasant words are not true.
Lao Tzu
For all questions, we discover convincing evidence only when we are already sufficiently convinced of the truth of what is being proved.
I. Etves
Life is like games: some come to compete, others to trade, and the most to watch; so also in life others, like slaves, are born greedy for glory and gain, while philosophers are only up to the only truth.
Pythagoras (c. 650–c. 569 BC), ancient Greek mathematician
Three stages of recognition of scientific truth: the first - "this is absurd", the second - "there is something in this", the third - "it is well known".
Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937), English physicist
The truth is in the middle.
Moses Maimonides (1135–1204), Jewish philosopher
Truth is said to lie between two opposing opinions. Wrong! There is a problem between them.
Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749–1832), German poet
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of deep truth can be another deep truth.
Niels Bohr (1885–1962), Danish physicist
Truth: An imaginary line dividing a delusion in two.
Elbert Hubbard (1859–1915), American writer
Perhaps two errors fighting each other are more fruitful than one undivided truth.
Jean Rostand (1894–1977), French biologist
Clarity is such an obvious property of truth that they are often even confused with each other.
Joseph Joubert (1754–1824), French writer
It is much easier to find a mistake than the truth.
Johann Wolfgang Goethe
There are truths so obvious that they cannot be proven.
Arkady Davidovich (b. 1930), writer
Absolute truths are absolutely useless.
Sylvia Cheese (b. 1946), Belgian journalist
A person cannot bow to one truth without stepping on the foot of another.
Friedrich Goebbel (1813–1863), German playwright
Every truth is destined for one moment of triumph between infinity, when it is considered false, and infinity, when it is considered trivial.
Henri Poincaré (1854–1912) French mathematician and physicist
If the geometric axioms hurt the interests of people, they would be refuted.
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), English philosopher
Every truth is born as heresy and dies as prejudice.
Thomas Huxley (1825–1895), British biologist
Renouncing the truth, I felt like Galileo.
Arkady Davidovich
Scientific truth triumphs as its opponents die out.
Paraphrased by Max Planck (1858–1947), German physicist
Who is a heretic? One who deviates from the prevailing or generally accepted views, rules, regulations. The subverter of traditions, the apostate, the other-of-a-kind disturber of the peace and the source of doubts about the correctness of the existing order. They are not satisfied with the current state of affairs, they put forward new ideas, destroying the foundations and solid foundations of the universe.
Who is an innovator? A person who discovers an innovation (innovation) or who introduces new ideas in some area. The central figures of all transformations in society. They do not give rest, being a source of innovative conflicts, create a revolution in the minds, produce transformations and changes in social mechanisms, developing and introducing innovations.
A heretic who claims that we live wrong and an innovator who knows what and how to do, what was better - this is one and the same person. Almost any innovation leads to small or large changes in society, it forces you to say goodbye to the usual way of life, and is also associated with risk, loss of peace and advantages for someone.
Accordingly, innovators are, on the one hand, dangerous people, they are often dissatisfied with everything, experience problems in relationships with the group, conflict and quarrelsome, on the other hand, without them, many processes in production are conserved and do not allow society to develop.
The ability to compete and win is equal to the ability to surprise. And in war, which is more familiar to mankind than peace, surprise is the only way to survive. Non-standard thinking in a standard-shitty situation finds solutions that are inaccessible to traditionalists, who strictly adhere to the generally accepted canon and anathematize wrong-thinking heretics.
And heretics-innovators, pokaskinuv their "wrong" brains, find a way out of a hopeless situation and solve unsolvable problems, saving the traditionalists from certain death.
Heretics-orthodoxes, innovators-traditionalists form inseparable dichotomous pairs, which, mutually complementing each other, make the state both stable and capable of expanded reproduction.
If orthodox traditionalists are the immune cells of society, heretical innovators are its regeneration system.
Heretic innovators are consummate crisis managers and start-ups, orthodox traditionalists are masters of regular management.
The presence of heretics in the state and a loyal attitude towards their “quirks” is the key to the stability of the country in crisis situations.
The tolerance for heresy cultivated in civil society is converted as a result into scientific and technological progress, military victories and creative success, but makes life fun instead of good, with a constant element of unpredictability and permanent drive.
Although the innovators themselves are certainly a conflictogenic factor, and therefore the attitude towards them is ambiguous, one can even say indifferent: from admiration to hatred, if the implementation of the proposed ideas can, on the one hand, become a powerful competitive organization, and on the other hand, endanger the quiet life of the team.
Medieval Europe, having become infected with the Protestant heresy and survived a stormy and bloody reformation, gave birth to so many innovations in all spheres of public life that they were enough for three hundred years of planetary dominance, until the baton was intercepted by heretic renegades from the New World, who were effectively supplemented through and through by the heretical Red Empire .
But as soon as civil society began to be weary of unpredictable innovators with their love of vertical racing, and gave preference to orthodox traditionalists who happily slaughtered and strangled heretic bastards, life became calm, predictable, but at the same time similar to last year's chewing gum, with a guaranteed stagnation in both science and art.
The late USSR, the modern US and Europe, and traditional Muslim jurisdictions are walking examples of sacrificing heresy on the altar of standardization and predictability.
At the beginning of the 16th century, the artist Albrecht Dürer painted a picture "Four Apostles". The images of the apostles reveal the character traits of an innovator at different stages of the idea implementation: from the process of inception to the material embodiment. The painting embodies four temperamental characters in the person of the saints - John, Peter, Paul and Mark, united by a common humanistic ideal of independent thought, willpower, steadfastness in the struggle for justice and truth. The picture was painted at a time when Christian church experienced a period of reformation and heresy was legalized and socially approved.
Today, history repeats itself... And Luther's place is still free...
Current page: 5 (total book has 13 pages) [accessible reading excerpt: 9 pages]
Font:
100% +
Algorithm in action
"The state raises people: the beautiful - good, the opposite - bad" ( Socrates)
The statement I have chosen touches upon the problem of the influence of state orders on the formation of the moral qualities of citizens. IN modern world we have the opportunity to communicate with citizens of various countries, surprisingly, civic qualities also provide information about the state structure of the country from which they came. Therefore, understanding this relationship is important for orienting in the modern world.
The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates said: "The state raises people: the beautiful - good, the opposite - bad." Thus, the author is convinced that the state order is the most important factor that forms the civil qualities, moral attitudes and guidelines of people. What is the state, such are the people who make it up.
The state is understood as a special organization of political power, which has significant resources to regulate a wide range of social relations. The most important feature of the state is sovereignty - the supremacy and independence of state power, its ability to exercise its powers.
In the life of society, the state performs a number of significant functions, including economic, social, law enforcement. Socrates, saying “the state raises people”, means a cultural-ideological or educational function. Its essence is the formation of civic identity, the development by the younger generation of certain qualities, values, commitment to the state.
Understanding what qualities and how certain states will form in their citizens is connected with the characteristics of the political regime, a special form of the state, which reveals the methods of state administration, ways of interaction between power and society, and the perception of power by its own citizens.
A beautiful state, according to Socrates, is a democratic state. Democracy is a state system based on the idea and principles of democracy. Democratic orders presuppose the broad participation of the people in the management, development and adoption of political decisions. A democratic state needs an active, active, competent and responsible citizen, who has both political knowledge and experience in the implementation of political procedures.
The opposite state is a totalitarian dictatorship. Totalitarian power does not need an active, thinking citizen. We need a good performer, whose duty is to strictly and clearly fulfill the orders prescribed by the authorities. A kind of "human cog" in a bulky state machine. People in a totalitarian society are deprived of the feeling and feeling of freedom, but they are also relieved of responsibility. They are committed to power and deeply distrustful of each other.
Let us illustrate the theoretical arguments with specific examples. So, any modern democratic state, for example, the Russian Federation, is aimed at educating citizens in a democratic spirit. Special courses have been introduced into the school curriculum that tell about the structure of the state, the electoral process, and the constitutional rights of citizens. In many schools, meetings are organized with elected deputies, excursions to legislative bodies are conducted. For the development of civic competencies, school parliaments and presidents are elected. The goal is to form active and responsible citizens.
In a totalitarian society, however, the authorities seek to enslave the citizens, to suppress them, to cripple them morally. Thus, in fascist Germany, the Hitlerite authorities made millions of Germans complicit in their crimes. Convinced that “the Fuhrer thinks for each of us,” the Germans put up with concentration camps, denounced neighbors and colleagues, committed crimes against humanity, fighting in parts of the SS or the Wehrmacht. And only the death of the fascist regime forced the Germans to embark on the path of moral recovery and repentance.
For me, the school is a kind of state. Paraphrasing the words of Socrates, we can admit: "The school raises graduates: beautiful - good, opposite - bad." My school is a wonderful democratic school where every student's opinion is respected and valued. When choosing a school council, we learn how to conduct an election campaign, master electoral rights and competencies. I am convinced that my school raises and educates us as good citizens.
Having considered the theoretical provisions and examples, we are convinced that the authorities, the state and citizens are organically interconnected. What is the state, such are the citizens brought up by it.
Criteria for assessing task 29
Carefully read the criteria for evaluating a mini-essay (essay) below.
Among the criteria by which the performance of task 29 is assessed, criterion K1 is decisive. If the graduate did not, in principle, disclose the problem raised by the author of the statement, and the expert gave 0 points according to the K1 criterion, then the answer is not checked further. For the remaining criteria (K2, K3), 0 points are set in the protocol for checking tasks with a detailed answer.
Section 2. Sample essays (essays)
Philosophy
Dialogue of cultures“I don't want to wall my house or board up my windows. I want the spirit of the culture of various countries to blow everywhere as freely as possible: it is not only necessary that it knock me down. ” (R. Tagore)
The statement I have chosen is devoted to the problem of interconnection, interdependence between different cultural traditions, the implementation of a dialogue of cultures. Since ancient times, people have been in contact with each other and exchanged various cultural achievements. At the same time, the question of how to preserve the originality of the national culture, how to prevent the aggressive invasion of other cultural traditions has always been important and relevant.
Indian writer and poet Rabindranath Tagore said: “I don't want to wall my house or board up my windows. I want the spirit of the culture of various countries to blow everywhere as freely as possible: it is not only necessary that it knock me down. ”. In other words, one culture or another should not be isolated from the rest; on the contrary, free cultural exchange, the dialogue of cultures, should not be hindered. But, as in everything, there must also be a measure here: this “spirit of cultures” must not be “knocked down”. I agree with the author's opinion and am also convinced that an organic dialogue of cultures is an integral part of their healthy development. But in our time, we are increasingly becoming witnesses of how the spirit of various cultures “knocks down”, knocks us off the true path of development, and this should not be allowed.
For theoretical substantiation of this point of view, we present a number of explanations. In the modern language, scientists have about a hundred definitions of culture, but we will focus on the main one accepted by social scientists. So, in the broadest sense, culture is the totality of all material and spiritual goods created by man. Or, in other words, culture is a set of products, results, ways of transforming human activity.
Since the modern world has become particularly open to the "breathing spirit of different cultures", the question of the dialogue of cultures should be raised. Under the dialogue of cultures in the social sciences understand the relationship, interpenetration between the cultures of different countries and peoples. In the course of the dialogue of cultures, some cultures borrow something from others, join some traditions, sometimes even revise their values through trade contacts, all sorts of conquests, historical features relationships. This makes peoples more tolerant towards each other and often contributes to the resolution of interethnic conflicts.
But the dialogue of cultures does not always proceed naturally and organically. In today's world, we see a lot of evidence of this. The most striking of these inconsistencies are born in the course of globalization. Globalization is usually defined as a process of integration between countries and peoples, affecting all spheres of society and associated with the formation of a single humanity. In this context, we are talking about integrations in the spiritual sphere. And since globalization is a contradictory and ambiguous process, inconsistencies also appear in this area. But what are these inconsistencies?
Here we are undoubtedly talking about Westernization - the imposition of Western standards, values and cultural aspects on the Eastern world. And this aspect of the dialogue of cultures, of course, “knocks down”, because it leads to the destruction of the national culture and provokes a negative reaction from the eastern countries, which do not intend to calmly watch how foreign traditions completely supplant their special, centuries-old culture , with its own special values and foundations.
An example of a healthy organic dialogue of cultures, aimed solely at the development and strengthening of the cultures participating in it, can be an annual action dedicated to a particular country. For example, 2012 was the "cross year" of Russia in Germany and Germany in Russia. This, albeit focussed, but organically provokes a dialogue of cultures aimed at introducing citizens of one country to another culture and vice versa. This, undoubtedly, has a lot of positive consequences, starting with an increase in the level of education of the population and ending with an increase in the level of tolerance and a lower likelihood of interethnic conflicts.
And finally, even the modern world knows examples of countries isolated for cultural dialogue. This living example is the DPRK, or North Korea. At one time, under the USSR, the “Iron Curtain” was lowered there and the strictest censorship was introduced, that is, the spirit of various cultures, blowing outside, was simply not able to get there. Moreover, cultural dialogue is impossible even within, since 99% of the population are Koreans, and the remaining percentage is divided between the Chinese and Japanese. Thus, without receiving nourishment from the outside, culture is simply unable to develop and is forced to stagnate.
I can give my school as an example from personal experience. My school is open to various trends of everything new, is able to adopt the latest methods, conduct special programs offered by other educational institutions. Therefore, we can say that we see a clear development of the educational system in a single institution, while there are many schools whose leadership flatly refuses any innovations, closes the doors to them. In such schools, there is no progress in the educational system, the same methods and methods of teaching have been used for decades.
True"All truth is born as heresy and dies as prejudice" (T. G. Huxley)
In the statement I have chosen, the author touches upon the problem of the evolution of human knowledge as a process of endless progress from one relative truth to another. At all times, man has tried to get to the bottom of the matter, to get to the truth. This is the very essence of knowledge, which many philosophers singled out as the main ability of man, what distinguishes him from the animal.
The 19th-century English agnostic scholar Thomas Henry Huxley said: "All truth is born as heresy and dies as prejudice." In other words, he believed that any truth, emerging into the world, is ahead of its time, seems unnatural, unreal. And after some time, with a deeper study of the subject, it turns out that this truth does not at all give the full knowledge that it should give, and dies off as an unreliable relic of the past. I share the point of view of T. Huxley and also believe that the process of human cognition of the world surrounding him does not stand still, which means that we constantly learn something new about seemingly already fully studied objects and phenomena. And in such cases, our knowledge about these objects and phenomena becomes obsolete, and what once seemed like an incredible heresy, did not fit in human minds, now recedes into the past as a prejudice.
For a more complete justification of the chosen point of view, we turn to theoretical arguments. First of all, this statement is connected with such a type of human activity as cognition. Cognition, in fact, is the very process during which a person tries to find the truth mentioned in the statement. It is important to note that the statement I have chosen fully corresponds to the agnostic worldview regarding the process of cognition. Agnosticism (in the field of knowledge) means a philosophical trend, which consists in the fact that a person is not able to know the world, but is only capable of knowing his subjective images. In other words, agnostics deny the ability of man to get to the truth.
So what is truth? Modern social scientists define truth as knowledge that is reliable, that is, fully corresponds to a cognizable object or phenomenon. Truth can be divided into two categories: absolute and relative. Absolute truth is complete, final, exhaustive knowledge about a subject - the ideal end result of the process of knowing. Relative truth presupposes any reliable knowledge. That is, all reliable knowledge received by a person is relative truth. As well as a separate characteristic of truth, its objectivity is singled out. Objective truth is knowledge free from subjective factors, an objective reflection of reality.
To confirm the truth of a particular knowledge, scientists identify various criteria for truth. So, for example, Marxist philosophers believed that the universal criterion of truth is its confirmation by practice. But, since not all knowledge can be tested in practice, other criteria of truth are distinguished. Such as, for example, the construction of a logically consistent system of evidence or evidence, the axiomatic nature of truth. Basically, these criteria are used in mathematics. Common sense may be another criterion. Also, some modern philosophers single out the competent opinion of a group of scientists as a criterion of truth. It's peculiar modern science, especially for narrow areas. In this context, I would like to recall the saying of the German publicist and writer Ludwig Berne: “Truth is a delusion that has lasted for centuries. A delusion is a truth that has lasted only a minute.
In addition to theoretical justifications, a number of specific arguments can also be cited. Perhaps the most striking example is the rejection of the geocentric system of the world (the idea of the structure of the universe, according to which the central position in the Universe is occupied by the motionless Earth, around which the Sun, Moon, planets and stars revolve). During the scientific revolution of the 17th century, it became clear that geocentrism is incompatible with astronomical facts and contradicts physical theory; the heliocentric system of the world was gradually established. That is, just as at first the truth appeared sensationally and improbably, saying that the Earth is not just a part of the Universe, but also its center, so later it gave way to new knowledge.
Another example can be given. Ancient people could not explain many natural phenomena, such as rain, thunder, sun. But since a person needs to give an explanation of what is happening, to know incomprehensible phenomena, they were explained by actions heavenly powers- gods. For the ancient Slavs, the true knowledge of thunder was that the god Perun was angry with his people. But how can we consider this to be true in our day, when we already seem to have thoroughly studied these phenomena from a scientific point of view? Of course not. Moreover, such points of view are perceived in the modern world not just as prejudice, but as stupidity and ignorance.
Each new knowledge is inherent in a certain audacity. Let us recall, for example, the situation at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, when people were sure that there was nothing to study: everything was studied and open. Departments of physics began to close everywhere, scientists began to abandon their activities. But great discoveries were yet to come. Divisibility of atoms, X-rays were discovered, Einstein discovered the theory of relativity, and much more. Then this knowledge seemed unnatural and revolutionary. However, now we perceive these things as obvious and settled.
And, finally, what can be more obvious and axiomatic even for a person who is not particularly knowledgeable in mathematics than the fact that a straight line passes through two points in space, and moreover, only one? But this is true only in Euclidean geometry (3rd century BC). In the geometry of Lobachevsky (mid-19th century), this axiom is not at all true. And in general, all Euclidean geometry is only a special case of Lobachevsky's geometry.
You can also give an example from life experience. I think that every person has or had such a friend about whom, it would seem, everything is known: his behavior is predictable, his character is well studied, as it seems to us, we have developed true knowledge about this person. We can know, for example, about his kindness, and what will be our surprise when we see with our own eyes that this person is capable of cruelty. It is at this moment that the axiom will fall into the category of prejudices.
Thus, after analyzing the theoretical and actual examples, we can conclude that, indeed, any truth has its own “shelf life”. Appearing as something incomprehensible, unacceptable, it becomes a part of our consciousness, truth in the usual sense of the word, and then dies under the pressure of new ideas, knowledge and progress.
scientific progress"The only problem of modernity is whether man will be able to outlive his own inventions" ( L. de Broglie)
The statement I have chosen is connected with the problem of how scientific progress is combined with morality and morality. Developing, a person begins to consider himself omnipotent, since his inventions (especially in the modern world) are capable of something that could not even be imagined before.
The French theoretical physicist Louis de Broglie believed that modern science had developed so much that a person should even be afraid of his inventions. In other words, the "problem of modernity" is that often human inventions are much stronger than the man himself. It is impossible to disagree with this position. More and more often a person goes beyond the permissible limits of knowledge, his inventions can contradict humanistic values, endanger the lives of other people and even the entire planet.
In substantiation of the stated point of view, the following theoretical provisions can be cited. Arguing about human inventions and their expediency, we are faced with the question of scientific and technological progress and its inconsistency. Modern social sciences define social progress as changes taking place in society and leading from the lowest to the highest, from the primitive to the more perfect. That is, if we are talking about the scientific and technical side of progress, then we need to talk about moving forward, towards a more perfect one in the field of science, creating a better future for man through science. But in this area, one of the factors of the inconsistency of progress is manifested: the same invention can be directed both to the benefit of mankind, and to harm it, endanger people's lives and health.
Another aspect of the problem raised in the statement, in my opinion, is the expediency and humanistic orientation of scientific knowledge. In the modern world, the most active is the humanistic orientation of science. Humanism should measure everything that modern science creates. In social science, humanism is understood as a historically changing system of views, recognizing as the highest value a worthy life in all respects of a person, his rights to security, freedom, happiness, development and manifestation of his abilities, considering the good of a person to be the main criterion for progress, and the principles of equality, justice, humanity - the desired norm of relations between people. That is, if human inventions endanger the life, safety, health (physical and moral) of a person, then they cannot be considered humane and should not be mastered by a person.
In addition to theoretical substantiation, actual examples can also be given. So, for example, such inventions as, for example, weapons of mass destruction, various atomic technologies, the entire class of the military industry, fully fit the description of de Broglie. Such inventions are aimed at the destruction of people, although sometimes they are evidence of the undoubted genius of their inventor. Moreover, at the moment in the world there are such types of weapons of mass destruction that are capable of wiping out all life from the face of the Earth in a matter of minutes. So, having such inventions in the arsenal, a person undoubtedly endangers his existence.
Another example is a whole class of inventions, the operation of which provokes environmental pollution, and therefore endangers the life of the entire planet. Violating the ecology with his inventions, destroying the natural balance in nature, man is slowly but surely bringing a global catastrophe closer, the consequences of which terrify even the most optimistic scientists.
And finally, we can give an example from fiction. All fans of science fiction are firmly aware of the three laws of robotics, formulated by the American science fiction writer Isaac Asimov. Moreover, these laws are recognized by scientists around the world, and not only applicable to robotics, but also to other technical discoveries and even social institutions. In the original, these laws read: firstly, “a robot cannot harm a person or, by its inaction, allow harm to a person”, and secondly, “a robot must obey all orders given by a person, except when these orders are contrary to the First Law”, and finally, thirdly, “a robot must take care of its safety to the extent that this does not contradict the First and Second Laws.” Thus, A. Azimov formulated laws that meet the security of the relationship between man and his creation.
You can also give an example from personal experience. In almost every modern house you can find a TV, or even several, a microwave, a computer, a laptop, a radio. Perhaps almost every person has a mobile phone in his pocket or bag. For modern man, these things have become commonplace and irreplaceable. However, scientists have proven that the waves emitted by these devices can adversely affect human health and provoke various diseases. That is, even simple, everyday things can be dangerous.
Thus, indeed, many of the inventions can pose a real threat to both the individual and the whole of humanity. This means that the humanistic and moral justification of scientific knowledge is necessary in order for a person to be able to experience his own inventions.
Thomas Henry Huxley
In the statement I have chosen, the author touches upon the problem of the evolution of human knowledge as a process of endless progress from one relative truth to another. At all times, man has tried to get to the bottom: to get to the truth. This is the very essence of knowledge, which many philosophers singled out as the main ability of man, what distinguishes him from the animal.
The nineteenth-century English agnostic scholar Thomas Henry Huxley said:"All truth is born as heresy and dies as prejudice."In other words, he believed that any truth, emerging into the world, is ahead of its time, seems unnatural, unreal. And after some time, with a deeper study of the subject, it turns out that this truth does not at all give that complete knowledge that it should give and dies off as an unreliable relic of the past. I share the point of view of T. Huxley and also believe that the process of human cognition of the world surrounding him does not stand still, which means that we constantly learn something new about seemingly already fully studied objects and phenomena. And in such cases, our knowledge about these objects and phenomena becomes obsolete, and what once seemed like an incredible heresy, did not fit in human minds, is now receding into the past as a prejudice.
For a more complete justification of the chosen point of view, we turn to theoretical arguments. First of all, this statement is connected with such a type of human activity as cognition. Cognition, in fact, is the very process during which a person tries to find the truth mentioned in the statement. It is important to note that the statement I have chosen fully corresponds to the agnostic worldview regarding the process of cognition. Agnosticism (in the field of knowledge) means a philosophical trend, which consists in the fact that a person is not able to know the world, but is only capable of knowing his subjective images. In other words, agnostics deny the ability of man to get to the truth.
So what is truth? Modern social scientists define truth as knowledge that is reliable, that is, fully corresponds to a cognizable object or phenomenon. Truth can be divided into two categories: absolute and relative. Absolute truth is complete, final, exhaustive knowledge about a subject - the ideal end result of the process of knowing. Relative truth presupposes any reliable knowledge. That is, all reliable knowledge received by a person is relative truth. Also, as a separate characteristic of truth, its objectivity is singled out. Objective truth is knowledge that is not bound, free from subjective factors, an objective reflection of reality.
To confirm the truth of a particular knowledge, scientists identify various criteria for truth. So, for example, Marxist philosophers believed that the universal criterion of truth is its confirmation by practice. But since not all knowledge can be tested in practice, other criteria of truth are distinguished. Such as, for example, the construction of a logically consistent system of evidence or evidence, the axiomatic nature of truth. Basically, these criteria are used in mathematics. Common sense may be another criterion. Also, some modern philosophers will single out the competent opinion of a group of scientists as a criterion of truth. This is characteristic of modern science, especially for narrow areas. In this context, I would like to recall the saying of the German publicist and writer Ludwig Berne: “Truth is a delusion that has lasted for centuries. A delusion is a truth that has lasted only a minute.
In addition to theoretical justifications, a number of specific arguments can also be given. Perhaps the most striking example is the rejection of the geocentric system of the world (the idea of the structure of the universe, according to which the central position in Universe occupies motionless Earth around which they revolve Sun, Moon, planets and stars ). During the scientific revolution of the 17th century, it became clear that geocentrism is incompatible with astronomical facts and contradicts physical theory; gradually establishedheliocentric system of the world. That is, as at first the truth appeared sensationally and implausibly, saying that the Earth is not just a part of the universe, but also its center, it also subsequently died quietly, giving way to new knowledge.
Another example can be given. Ancient people could not explain many natural phenomena such as rain, thunder, sun. But since a person needs to give an explanation of what is happening, to know incomprehensible phenomena, they were explained by the actions of heavenly forces - the gods. So, for example, for the ancient Slavs, the true knowledge of thunder was that the god Perun was angry with his people for something. But how can we consider this to be true in our day, when we already seem to have thoroughly studied these phenomena from a scientific point of view? Of course not. Moreover, such points of view are perceived in the modern world not just as prejudice, but as stupidity and ignorance.
Each new knowledge is inherent in a certain audacity. Let us recall, for example, the situation at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, when people were sure that there was nothing to study: everything was studied and open. Departments of physics began to close everywhere, scientists began to abandon their activities. But great discoveries were yet to come. The divisibility of atoms, X-rays were discovered, Einstein discovered the theory of relativity and much more. Then this knowledge seemed unnatural and revolutionary. However, now we perceive these things as obvious and settled.
And finally, what can be more obvious and more axiomatic even for a person who is not particularly knowledgeable in mathematics than the fact that a straight line passes through two points of space and, moreover, only one. But this is true only in Euclidean geometry ( III in. BC.). In the geometry of Lobachevsky (mid-19th century), this axiom is not at all true. And in general, all Euclidean geometry is only a special case of Lobachevsky's geometry.
You can also give an example from life experience. I think that every person has or had such a friend about whom, it would seem, everything is known: his behavior is predictable, his character has been studied up and down. Simply put, in our head it is formed, as it seems to us, true knowledge about this person. We can learn, for example, about his unearthly kindness, which at first will seem absolutely unreal to us. And what a surprise it will be when we see with our own eyes that this man is capable of cruelty. It is at this point that the axiom falls into the category of prejudice.
Thus, after analyzing the theoretical and actual examples, we can conclude that, indeed, any truth has its own “shelf life”. Appearing as something incomprehensible, unacceptable, it becomes a part of our consciousness, the truth in the usual sense of the word, and then dies, trampled down by the ruthless "feet" of knowledge and progress.
