From the article you will learn:
Greetings to all of you, our dear visitors, readers and guests. We continue to talk about cryptocurrencies and today the topic of our article will be Ripple’s pros and cons in comparison with Ethereum.
I think you know for sure that the correction of cryptocurrency rates occurred, albeit with a certain delay. If we take into account the period from January 7 to the beginning of December, then in just over a month, cryptocurrency market capitalization decreased by almost 67%. Meanwhile, a slight increase followed. But even despite such a decline, cryptocurrencies are still ahead of classical assets, since since 2017 their capitalization has grown over 3000% - this is a phenomenal amount.
Best broker
ETHER, RIPPLE CAME OUT OF THE SHADOW
The main contribution to the development of the cryptocurrency market in 2017 was made by these two large cryptocurrencies, which emerged from the shadow of Bitcoin and attracted the attention of many investors!
Speaking in percentage terms, Ethereum grew by 9,400% in 2017, and Ripple added a record 35,000%. Although Bitcoin was named the most successful cryptocurrency in 2017, we can safely say that this year was left to Ripple, as well as Ether.
The fundamental success of these cryptocurrencies lies in the blockchain system. Blockchain is a ledger that underlies cryptocurrencies, within which various transactions for a specific currency are recorded. It is generally accepted that blockchain can be used perfectly in various areas of our activities.
With its help, it will be possible to significantly increase the speed of transactions. In addition, the influence of intermediaries is also leveled, and commission costs will be seriously reduced! In general, everyone understands that the banking sector is far from ideal, but blockchain can correct this situation.
ETHER. WHY IS HE SO SPECIAL?
It’s worth saying here that it is thanks to the blockchain that we use that we see a large number of projects developing on the basis of this system. This is the first major blockchain that could be freely used not only for making payments.
Roughly speaking, with its help, large businesses received a unique opportunity to limit themselves to innovation not only in the field of translations, but also to solve issues in such industries as, for example, logistics, as well as management! It is not surprising that in 2017 an alliance of 200 companies was created that began testing the Ethereum blockchain in various areas. In fact, there is no blockchain that is better suited for various areas than the Ethereum blockchain.
WATCH MY VIDEO SURVEILLANCE
Main advantages Ethereum is the fact that so-called smart contracts operate within its framework. Smart contracts help facilitate, confirm, and also monitor the objectivity of the conclusion and compliance with any contract. Their main goal is to replace the usual paper contracts, which have long become ineffective, thereby giving businesses innovation. Smart contracts can really provide security, since the possibility of possible falsification is eliminated due to their decentralization!
RIPPLE PROS AND CONS. WHY DOES HE GET ATTENTION?
Unlike Ethereum, Ripple focuses more on large-scale cooperation with financial institutions. A distinctive feature of the Ripple blockchain is the incredible speed of transactions, as well as incredibly low commissions.
Some organizations have studied the transaction speed of certain cryptocurrencies. So, it was noted that Ripple is capable of conducting about 1,500 transactions per second, ranking first among cryptocurrencies. Meanwhile, VISA currently carries out over 20,000 transactions. However, Ripple with its blockchain is a scalable structure. Accordingly, Ripple will be able to conduct a huge number of transactions per second. In addition, the commission for each individual transaction is about one cent, which makes the Ripple blockchain very attractive.
At the moment, Ripple is already collaborating with several large companies. As a result of the conglomerate, companies say they are now able to quickly process cross-border transfers that previously took days but carried significant commission costs. Now everything happens instantly, with minimal costs.
THE MOST GLOBAL RISKS OF RIPPLE WITH ETHEREUM
Without a doubt, these are large, promising cryptocurrencies, however, there is a risk everywhere, as here too! Despite the fact that there are enough companies that want to try the blockchains of these two cryptocurrencies, there are certain disadvantages that can simply put an end to all the bright prospects.
BLOCKCHAIN IS NOT USED ON A LARGE BASIS IN DIFFERENT AREAS
Here you must understand that a very important fact is that despite all the promise of these cryptocurrencies, everything will be determined by how quickly a business can find a real rational use of the blockchain to solve pressing problems.
It should be clearly understood that many people say that blockchain is incredibly promising, it can be used in many areas. For example, here. Meanwhile, we see that blockchain technology is already about 10 years old, but it is not used on a large scale anywhere. Yes, there are many companies that are testing it, but there is no real large-scale application yet!
No one can predict the timing of the actual implementation and use of blockchain. The Ripple and Ethereum blockchains have not yet undergone real testing; at the moment, the use of the blockchain of these cryptocurrencies is limited to some small demo projects - nothing more! In addition, you need to understand that at the moment, cooperation between blockchain and other systems in different industries is not always possible.
That is, it is meant that in some systems it will simply not be possible to simply introduce blockchain and painlessly. Roughly speaking, many systems will simply have to be designed from scratch. As you understand, this will result in colossal time and also monetary costs. It is unlikely that there will be investors who will be willing to invest exorbitant amounts of money in blockchain technology, which has not yet proven itself in practice.
Roughly speaking, if in the near future a business does not find a real use for the blockchain, then the rates of Ripple and Ethereum may fall very much!
EVERYONE IS CAPABLE OF RELEASEING THEIR CRYPT
Another important reason to stress is that anyone can put their cryptocurrency into circulation. As practice shows, today this is not a problem. In just a year, about 600 different cryptocurrencies were created, many of them have their own blockchain!
All that is needed to create a blockchain with the corresponding cryptocurrency linked to it is capital, time, and a development team. This already means that many blockchains can absorb the advantages of many cryptocurrencies, eliminating their shortcomings.
What I mean is that there is no guarantee that tomorrow there won't be a blockchain that will eclipse the pros and cons of Ripple and Ethereum. As a result, they will become completely useless to anyone. Considering the fact that this area is actively developing and progressing, the possibility of such a scenario cannot be ruled out. Naturally, this kind of situation will not point in favor of Ethereum and Ripple.
CONCLUSIONS
Yes, without a doubt, the Ripple and Ethereum blockchains are very promising, yes, they are of increased interest from many companies. However, many people really have fear and lack of understanding of the real use of blockchain technology in everyday life. I'm not saying that this system has no future. On the contrary, her future is very bright, but the timing is still unclear.
Sensualism and rationalism are two extremes in assessing the relationship between sensory and rational reflection in the process of cognition.
Sensualism (from Latin sensu - feeling) (D. Locke, Condillac, etc.) absolutizes the role of sensory reflection, defending the thesis: there is nothing in the mind that is not in the feelings.
The strength of sensationalism is its emphasis on the role of sensory cognition as the most important source of primary information.
Weak - in the overvaluation of sensory knowledge, in an attempt to reduce the entire process of cognition to various combinations of sensory data, to belittle and negate the role of thinking.
As a result, sensationalism has always given in to the question of the nature of general concepts, to mathematical truths, etc.
Sensationalism(French sensualisme, from Latin sensus - perception, feeling, sensation), a direction in the theory of knowledge, according to which sensuality is the main form of knowledge. In contrast to rationalism, it seeks to derive the entire content of knowledge from the activity of the senses.
Prominent representatives of materialistic S. in the 17th century. were P. Gassendi, T. Hobbes and J. Locke. The latter, based on the fundamental formulas of S., made an attempt to derive from sensory experience the entire content of human consciousness, although he admitted that the mind is inherent in spontaneous power, independent of experience.
The weaknesses of sensationalism were actively used by rationalism (from the Latin ratio - reason) (R. Descartes, B. Spinoza, Leibniz), which in turn belittled the role of sensory knowledge and assigned a decisive place to reason, divorced from sensory reflection. If sensationalism, in its one-sidedness, stops knowledge halfway, on purely experimental data, then rationalism tears reason away from its nutritious soil, from empirical facts, and thereby deprives knowledge of the basis on which the only successful work of the mind cognizing the world can be built.
Thus, only in the unity of sensory reflection and rational knowledge, empirical and theoretical knowledge is the real path to comprehending the truth. And we will now turn to the ultimate goal of knowledge - to the problem of truth.
Rationalism(French rationalisme, from Latin rationalis - reasonable, ratio - reason), a philosophical direction that recognizes reason as the basis of human cognition and behavior. R. opposes both fideism and irrationalism, and sensationalism (empiricism). The term "R." used to designate and characterize philosophical concepts since the 19th century. Historically, the rationalist tradition dates back to ancient Greek philosophy: for example, even Parmenides, who distinguished between knowledge “according to truth” (obtained through reason) and knowledge “according to opinion” (achieved as a result of sensory perception), saw in reason the criterion of truth.
Justifying the unconditional reliability of scientific principles and provisions of mathematics and natural science, R. tried to solve the question: how knowledge acquired in the process of human cognitive activity acquires an objective, universal and necessary character. In contrast to sensationalism, R. argued that scientific knowledge, which has these logical properties, is achievable through reason, which is its source and at the same time the criterion of truth. Turning to reason as the only source of scientific knowledge led R. to the idealistic conclusion about the existence of innate ideas (Descartes) or predispositions and inclinations of thinking independent of sensuality (Leibniz). R.'s downplaying of the role of sensory perception, in the form of which a person's connection with the outside world is realized, entailed a separation of thinking from the object of knowledge.
The limitations and one-sidedness of R. were overcome by Marxism. Resolution of the contradiction between empiricism and R. became possible on fundamentally new foundations developed in the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism. The main condition for solving this problem was the analysis of the process of cognition in organic connection with practical activities to transform reality. “From living contemplation to abstract thinking and from it to practice - this is the dialectical path of cognition of truth, cognition of objective reality.”
81. Dialectics of the sensual and rational, empirical and theoretical in knowledge.
Sensory knowledge is knowledge in the form of sensations and perceptions of the properties of things directly given to the senses. The initial sensory image in cognitive activity is sensation - the simplest sensory image, reflection, copy or a kind of snapshot of individual properties of objects.
Any object has many different aspects and properties. Consequently, the objective basis for perceiving an image as a whole is the unity and at the same time the multiplicity of various aspects and properties of the object. A holistic image that reflects objects directly affecting the senses, their properties and relationships, is called perception. Sensations and perceptions are realized and developed in the process of practical interaction between a person and the outside world, as a result of the active work of the senses.
Memory plays a very important cognitive role. It unites the past and the present into one organic whole, where there is their mutual penetration. If images, having appeared in the brain at the moment of exposure to an object, disappeared immediately after the cessation of this influence, then each time a person would perceive objects as completely unfamiliar.
Representations are images of those objects that once influenced the human senses and are then restored according to the connections preserved in the brain.
Sensations and perceptions are the beginning of conscious reflection. Memory consolidates and stores received information. In representation, consciousness is first torn away from its immediate source and begins to exist as a relatively independent subjective phenomenon. A person can creatively combine and create new images relatively freely. Representation is an intermediate link between perception and theoretical thinking.
Important methods of research in science, especially in natural science, are observation and experiment. Observation is a deliberate, systematic action carried out with the aim of identifying the essential properties and relationships of the object of knowledge. Observation requires special training. The most important place in this preparation is occupied by understanding the tasks of observation, the requirements that observation must satisfy, and the preliminary development of its plan and methods. Observation captures what nature itself offers. But a person cannot limit himself to the role of an observer. While conducting experiments, he is also an active tester. An experiment is a research method with the help of which an object is either reproduced artificially or placed under certain conditions that meet the goals of the study. A special form of cognition is a thought experiment that is performed on an imaginary model. It is characterized by a close interaction between imagination and thinking.
The process of cognition is carried out in such a way that we first observe the general picture of the subject being studied, and the particulars remain in the shadows. With such a view of things, it is impossible to know their internal structure and essence. To study the particulars, we must consider the components of the subject being studied. Analysis is the mental decomposition of an object into its constituent parts or sides. Being a necessary method of thinking, analysis is only one of the moments in the process of cognition.
Each area of knowledge has, as it were, its own limit of division of an object, beyond which we move into the world of other properties and patterns. When the particulars have been sufficiently studied through analysis, the next stage of cognition begins - synthesis - the mental unification into a single whole of elements dissected by analysis. Analysis mainly captures what is specific that distinguishes parts from each other. Synthesis reveals that essential commonality that connects the parts into a single whole.
A18. Spiritual activities include 1) building a library 2) creating a song 3) making musictool
4) printing house work
A19. The highest degree of development of abilities is called
1) uniqueness
2) genius
3) talent
4) originality
A20. Labor as a purposeful activity begins
1) from hunting and gathering
2) from the manufacture of tools
3) with the advent of crafts
4) with the transition to agriculture
A21. A person acquires knowledge as a result
1) weapon activity
2) cognitive activity
3) divine revelation
4) influence of nature
A22. Generalization is an integral part
1) sensory knowledge
2) production activities
3) rational knowledge
4) gaming activities
1) positivism
2) rationalism
3) empiricism
4) agnosticism
A24. Truth is
1) revelation given by God
2) correspondence between knowledge and the object of knowledge
3) the result of creative insight
4) an abstract concept that is really unattainable
A25. The driving force of the cognition process is
1) guess
2) hypothesis
3) practical activities
4) scientific theory
A26. Is the judgment correct? Man is a product
A. Biological evolution
B. Social evolution
A27. Is the judgment correct? Human life activity
A. Programmed by nature
B. Depends on his consciousness and will
Answer options: 1) only A is true 2) only B is true 3) A and B are true 4) both are false
A28. Is the judgment correct? A person becomes a person
A. Immediately after birth
B. As a result of social influence
Answer options: 1) only A is true 2) only B is true 3) A and B are true 4) both are false
A29. Is the judgment correct? Human
A. Has a biological basis
B. Has the ability to socially adapt
Answer options: 1) only A is true 2) only B is true 3) A and B are true 4) both are false
A30. Is the judgment correct? Personality embodies the traits
A. Characteristic for a given society
B. Individual, highlighting a specific person
Answer options: 1) only A is true 2) only B is true 3) A and B are true 4) both are false
A31. Is the judgment correct? The basis of the characteristics of any personality is
A. Her uniqueness, individuality
B. Degree of assimilation of social experience
Answer options: 1) only A is true 2) only B is true 3) A and B are true 4) both are false
A32. Is the judgment correct? Informal interpersonal relationships
A. Regulated by certain standards
B. Determined by the individual characteristics of the participants
Answer options: 1) only A is true 2) only B is true 3) A and B are true 4) both are false
AZZ. Is the judgment correct? Human freedom is
A. The ability not to be responsible for one’s actions and actions
B. Awareness of the extent of one’s responsibility
Answer options: 1) only A is true 2) only B is true 3) A and B are true 4) both are false
A34. Is the judgment correct?
A. Every person is an individual
B. A person’s personality is the totality of his individual traits
Answer options: 1) only A is true 2) only B is true 3) A and B are true 4) both are false
A35. Is the judgment correct?
A. Tool activity is inherent only to man
B. Animals use and even make tools
Answer options: 1) only A is true 2) only B is true 3) A and B are true 4) both are false
A36. Is the judgment correct? Human activity
A. Promotes adaptation to the outside world
B. Transforms the surrounding nature
Answer options: 1) only A is true 2) only B is true 3) A and B are true 4) both are false
A37. Is the judgment correct? Human activity
A. Is exclusively consumer in nature
B. Is the result of biological evolution
Answer options: 1) only A is true 2) only B is true 3) A and B are true 4) both are false
A38. Is the judgment correct? Spiritual activity is directed
A. To transform the natural environment
B. To change society
Answer options: 1) only A is true 2) only B is true 3) A and B are true 4) both are false
A39. Is the judgment correct? Rational cognition
A. It is based on sensory knowledge
B. Carried out through thinking
Answer options: 1) only A is true 2) only B is true 3) A and B are true 4) both are false
A40. Is the judgment correct? True
A. Verified by practical activity
B. Objective and relative
Answer options: 1) only A is true 2) only B is true 3) A and B are true 4) both are false
About natural and social sciences The formation of concepts and theories in the social sciences has become a topic of discussion that is morethan for half a century split not only logicians and methodologists, but also social scientists themselves into two camps. Some of them were of the view that only the methods of the natural sciences, which led to such brilliant results, are scientific, and therefore only they should be used in their entirety for the study of human affairs. Failure to use them, it was argued, prevented the social sciences from developing explanatory theories comparable in accuracy to those of the natural sciences...
Representatives of another school saw a fundamental difference in the structure of the social and natural worlds. This feeling has led to the other extreme, namely the conclusion that the social sciences are entirely different from the natural sciences. Many arguments have been given to support this view. It was argued that the social sciences... are characterized by an individualizing approach and the search for individual affirmative judgments, while the natural sciences are generalizing, they are characterized by a search for universal reliable judgments. In a word, supporters of this school argue that the natural sciences must deal with material objects and processes, while the social sciences must deal with psychological and intellectual ones, and that, therefore, the method of the former is explanation, the latter - understanding.
Questions and tasks: Do you agree that it is impossible to achieve understanding in the natural sciences, and the human sciences do not explain anything?
Continuing the topic of personal defense mechanisms, let’s consider this method as rationalization.
As the name itself suggests, its essence is that, while protecting one’s own psyche, a person tends to look for (and find) a logical, rational explanation for unacceptable emotions and actions. This method of defense is closely related to a person’s self-esteem, defending which he tries to find an acceptable explanation for some inconvenient or traumatic circumstances in his life, to justify his inaction and failures.
"Saving" the family
A common example from life: a husband cheats. However, a woman, defending her self-esteem or justifying her behavior towards her husband, thereby unwittingly encouraging him, says that all men cheat, but we need to save the family (family, apparently, is when you live together in the same apartment and have common children, well and some kind of property?), that children need a father. At the same time, she remembers that her father cheated on her mother, but her mother continued to live with him and even begins to be proud: well done - she saved the family!
After all, if you look at the situation not from the point of view of defense, but objectively, then you begin to understand that either your husband does not love you and does not value you as a woman, and then you need to do something with yourself and your life; or simply your husband has such attitudes and values, and in fact there is no point in living with a person who does not value you, but uses you to create his own comfort. In general, as a result, you can come to the conclusion that for your own self-esteem you need to change your life. And this, of course, is not easy! So the excuses that pass from one generation of women to another emerge from the subconscious like a lifeline.
There's no point
Another common example, when a person cannot earn money for an expensive car, begins to say that there is no point in buying an expensive one: the roads are bad, they can be stolen, or the tax office will “attack” you to find out where you got the money for the car. And so, you live in peace, you drive an old Zaporozhets, and you need less gasoline, and no one pays attention to you.
In order not to disturb or destroy their self-esteem, people often hang advantageous labels on themselves that can justify them to others and themselves. For example, I am very knowledgeable and talented, but I have not achieved success because I am very decent and honest. But they don’t like people like that; the bosses like sycophants. So nothing worked out for me with my career.
As a result, self-esteem is in order, the explanation is quite rational.
Despite the rationality in the name, this method of defense sometimes entails completely irrational explanations for some events in one’s life, which can cause discomfort in a person. For example: this is fate. A person cannot find a good job - that’s his fate! Or karma, in Buddhist terms.
Or, if there is something missing in life: family, relationships or some material things, then that means the person doesn’t need it in life. He has a different mission, he came to this earth with a different goal, with a different task, which, in fact, he has been looking for all his life.
Positive aspects
However, rationalization, like other methods of protection, certainly has its advantages.
For example, the use of this method allows a person to come to terms with really difficult situations in life: the loss of loved ones, obvious manifestations of injustice or meanness.
Like any phenomenon, rationalization has two sides, its pros and cons. If you notice that this method of defense is the most typical for you, and you want to change your life, then more often pay attention to what you say to yourself and your loved ones in cases of your failures or problems. If you can find a logical and acceptable explanation for them, then try to use your ability to rationalize in such a way that it begins to help you - find logical and rational ways to begin to achieve your goals and change your life the way you want.
The virtues of rational knowledge
Rational knowledge predominates in the Western world, and many thinking people consider it the only reliable one. They, as a rule, are not inclined to take anything for granted and strive to prove any statement logically or empirically: a statement is not considered true until it is convincingly proven. The great advantage of rational knowledge lies, first of all, in the fact that a huge number of people are able to independently verify all the arguments in favor of or against any judgments, which is possible due to their logical form.
Disadvantages of rational cognition
The undoubted advantages of rational knowledge gave rise to rationalism. At the foundation of this current of philosophical thought is the position: reason is the only reliable source of knowledge. However, rational knowledge is very limited in its capabilities. Let us consider arguments that illustrate this limitation.
1. The Achilles heel of rational knowledge is a contradiction: on the one hand, the well-known law of formal logic - the law of sufficient reason - requires each statement to be sufficiently substantiated, i.e. not to take for granted; on the other hand, the foundations of any doctrine and any science are fundamental provisions that are taken on faith. Moreover, the law of sufficient reason itself cannot be proven and is taken on faith.
2. Rational knowledge requires clear and unambiguous definition of concepts, and this is justified. For example, until 1860 in science there were no unambiguous concepts of “atom” and “molecule,” which often led scientists to misunderstanding each other. In 1860, at the first International Congress of Chemists in Karlsruhe, these concepts were given a clear and unambiguous definition. Since then, the misunderstandings associated with them have become a thing of the past. However, many philosophical, religious and scientific concepts have multiple definitions. Thinking people can attach a wide range of meanings to the same concept, especially a complex one. We can give vivid examples showing how the requirement to clearly and unambiguously define concepts limits rational thinking, turns disputes and discussions into a meaningless exercise, and leads reasoning to a dead end. Plato, through the mouth of Socrates, showed that the process of defining moral concepts can be endless. Some important philosophical concepts have hundreds of definitions, such as “culture.” “Back in the 60s. of our century, A. Kroeber and K. Klahkon, analyzing only American cultural studies, cited the figure - 237 definitions (definitions). Now, in the 90s, these calculations are hopelessly outdated, and the increased theoretical interest in the study of culture led to an avalanche-like growth of the position on its designation. Whatever the author, his own understanding of culture.” [Culturology. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house "Phoenix", 1996. P. 73]. Thinking people conducting a scientific conversation may not know all the known definitions of the same concept, and each of them may know their own special set of these definitions. One can only be surprised that people are even able to understand each other! This is possible because all concepts have intuitive ideas. For example, every thinking person knows what life is, although many people may not know a single scientific definition of life. And science itself is far from a comprehensive understanding of this concept.
3. In 1931, the Austrian logician and mathematician Kurt Gödel formulated two theorems on incompleteness. From the second theorem it follows that even the arithmetic of integers cannot be completely axiomatized. In other words, the consistency of formal arithmetic cannot be proven by means of this arithmetic, but can only be proven with the help of a more general theory, the consistency of which will be even more doubtful. This conclusion can be extended to any formal system. Thus, Gödel showed the limitations of the axiomatic method, and, consequently, the general limitations of rational knowledge.
An analysis of the features of rational knowledge shows that the truth of any philosophical, religious teaching, or scientific theory cannot be justified only on the basis of logical procedures. Only people of a certain worldview are convinced of this truth, who accept on faith a certain set of fundamental principles.
So, for example, mathematics, according to Pythagoras, is a science, since it is based on exact knowledge. But it also presupposes an answer to the question: who is the creator of this knowledge? Nature? God? In an effort to answer, we already find ourselves in the realm of philosophy. In knowing God and the Universe, man relies on faith. That is why there are hundreds, thousands of philosophical schools, and each contains a fragment of the Absolute Truth.
Faith lies at the basis of any system of theoretical knowledge - philosophical, religious teaching, scientific theory.
Messages to the inhabitants of the Earth
V. A. Shemshuk in the book “Dialogue Earth - Space” claims that the inhabitants of the Earth from Space received several requests, in particular, in 576 BC, in 711, in 1929. The latter is conventionally called “ Third Appeal to Humanity." Let's leave aside questions about whether it really came from Space or whether it was fabricated. Much more important is its logical content, the harsh truth of the problems posed. Here are excerpts from the book. “The basis of your rational logic is the concepts of “yes” and “no”, as supposedly really existing and repeatedly manifested during a step-by-step analysis of any complex issue. At the same time, the number of steps in the analysis is finite and most often small, even when you are investigating a fairly serious problem. Finding an answer comes down to choosing one of many solutions, while the right solution lies between them.” [Shemshuk V. A. Dialogue Earth - Space. M.: Publishing house “World Fund for Planet Earth”, 2004. P. 47]. “The absurd splitting of the logical foundation into the concepts of “yes” and “no” is the biggest obstacle on the path to your knowledge of existence.” [Ibid. P. 50]. “...your logic is based on a discrete foundation instead of a continuous one, and it is based on the most primitive function, which has only two values.” [Ibid].
Essentially, these passages speak of the limitations of formal logic in solving a certain range of cognitive problems, primarily ideological ones.
Rational cognition in modern education
In modern secondary and higher education, rational knowledge occupies stone chambers, and intuition huddles in the outskirts. It seems that the creators of the programs forget that there is visual and musical art in the world, not to mention the richest meditative experience of Humanity. The subtlest children's intuition is purposefully killed by logic. Is it because logic makes it easy to control adults?
The need for dialectical thinking
In no case should we belittle the great achievements of formal logic. Since the time of Aristotle, it has been excellent at solving many complex problems. However, any branch of knowledge, any science has a limited scope of application, beyond which deviations from the truth occur. When solving some problems, primarily ideological ones, formal logic can give bad advice. But, despite this, many scientific directions remain sacredly faithful to it.
Modern physics has shown how fruitful it can be to deviate from the usual pattern of thinking, which is based on the incompatibility of the concepts of “yes” and “no.” Newton and Huygens proposed different theories of light, corpuscular and wave. Until the beginning of the 20th century, they seemed incompatible. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, thanks to Einstein, Bohr, and de Broglie, managed to combine both theories of light into one harmonious whole and brilliantly prove the merits of dialectical thinking.
The dominance of formal logic in fundamental science is a brake on its development. Dialectical thinking is necessary when solving fundamental scientific problems .
[Cm. Lenin V.I. On the significance of militant materialism. PSS, 5th ed. T. 45. P. 29 – 31].
Intuitive cognition
Intuitive knowledge dominates in the Eastern world. In the East, thinking people, as a rule, do not attach fundamental importance to rational knowledge in religion. Gurus encourage students to suppress their inclinations and abilities, proclaiming that this is the only way to protect themselves from the distortions that the mind entails. On the one hand, by suppressing inclinations towards rational knowledge, mystics get rid of these shortcomings. On the other hand, by improving themselves, they deserve Revelation. It was thanks to intuitive, mystical knowledge that the prophets wrote or dictated the Holy Books. However, it is not without its drawbacks.
1. A person who begins his ascent along the intuitive path of cognition, still far from perfect, may be exposed to the influence of those very imperfect creatures of non-human nature who benefit from distorting the process of human cognition. Since he is not inclined to trust his mind, he deprives himself of the opportunity to get rid of these distortions through rational thinking.
2. Following only the intuitive path of cognition, it is difficult to express one’s judgments to other people in a strictly reasoned manner, because for this it is necessary to constantly practice rational thinking, which contradicts the requirements of this path of cognition. Moreover, any expressed thought cannot but be put into a logical form. Consequently, any attempt to express a thought that other people can understand means deviating from the intuitive path of knowledge.
Unity of Reason and Faith
One of the most important tasks of modern biology, in our opinion, is the harmonious combination of two theories: Divine Creation (creationism) and evolution. Too much irrefutable evidence of the evolution of the organic world has accumulated. And the reasoning of creationists is too thorough that evolution is extremely unlikely, occurring only as a mechanical, random process. The way out of this paradoxical situation is a synthetic solution: the Divine Hierarchy created life on Earth through evolution.
We can give examples from quantum physics, cosmogony, and geology that illustrate the fruitfulness of combining religious teachings and scientific theories.
Scientific reason must be married to religious faith .
Synthesis of rational and intuitive knowledge
The study of the synthesis of rational and intuitive knowledge seems to be very serious and promising and can be based on the achievements of modern logic and on centuries-old experience of meditative practice. In this short article we will only give a striking example of such a synthesis.
Two clarifications need to be made. The first is about a special state of the human body, which in the East is called somati. The stone-motionless bodies of some saints may appear dead to uninitiated people. However, in the East it is believed that the body in a state of samadhi is alive and can remain in this form for centuries and millennia. The scientist and traveler Ernst Muldashev writes about this state: “A person in samadhi is a living person.” [Muldashev E. From whom we came. M.: “AiF-Print”, 2001. P. 186]. “... the history of mankind on earth is dotted with global catastrophes that destroyed entire civilizations. Apparently, in the evolutionary work of nature for the development of humanity, it was quite logical to create also the Gene Fund of humanity, as an insurance link in case of global catastrophes.” [Ibid. P. 222]. “Samadhi is the only saving grace in the face of self-destruction of civilizations.” [Ibid. P. 104]. “More than one civilization has perished, and each time people who emerged from samadhi gave new sprouts to humanity...” [Ibid. P. 184].
The second explanation is about the great saint Reverend Alexander of Svir. Orthodox books say that he was born on June 15, 1448, and died on August 30, 1533. The Bolsheviks, having come to power, hid the body of the Reverend. The victorious democracy in Russia allowed the Orthodox Church to gain a holy body. The Alexander-Svirsky Monastery was revived, and the shrine was opened to believers for worship.
Alexander Svirsky's uncovered hands and feet look lifelike. I showed the postcard depicting the photograph of the Reverend to many people. Opinions were sharply divided. I heard four completely different explanations for this amazing phenomenon, which correspond to four different philosophical and religious schools:
1. Materialism. The photo may depict a wax doll.
2. Teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. It was not difficult for the devil to make a person’s body incorruptible in order to lead people away from the true religion (the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses) and lead them to a false one (Orthodoxy).
3. Orthodoxy. The relics of Saint Reverend Alexander of Svirsky rest in the shrine.
4. Some currents of Indian philosophy. In the sarcophagus lies a living body in a state of samadhi.
If you limit yourself only to rational thinking, it is impossible to come to a consensus. Indeed, each of the four judgments is not difficult to substantiate with the help of fundamental provisions, the truth of which is believed by representatives of the named philosophical and religious movements.
If you have sufficiently developed meditative abilities, intuition can harmoniously combine with rational arguments.
The state of mind that I experienced while staying in the Church of the Holy Trinity Alexander of the Svirsky Monastery was amazing. At some distance from the sarcophagus, I felt a line, crossing which I fell into a special field of influence and felt the presence of the living Reverend. If you experience such a shock, then thoughts about a wax doll and the machinations of the devil seem ridiculous. Even the doctrine of holy relics recedes. And the only reasonable ideas seem to be the state of samadhi. I recall the reasoning of Ernst Muldashev that the stone-motionless bodies of the greatest saints are the Gene Pool of Humanity, which is carefully preserved by initiates in case of future great upheavals.
For the development of fundamental science and education, a harmonious synthesis of intuitive and rational knowledge is necessary.
Unity of Humanity
Modern Humanity is split into a great many warring peoples, churches, states, parties. The dominance of rational knowledge in science and education adds fuel to the fire of this hostility. Without a doubt, there are powerful forces that benefit from it.
The mutual enrichment of religious teachings, the union of science and religion, the formation of a single world culture - these are the means that can unite the divided Humanity.
Ryltsev E. V.
Companion of the KPE, N. Tagil
