The role of intuition in scientific creativity is a topic of research by scientists in various fields of scientific interest, from mathematicians and physicists to sociologists and psychologists.

It is believed that the psychological mechanism of intuition has not yet been studied enough, but the available experimental data suggest that it is based on the ability of an individual to reflect, during informational, signal interaction with the environment, along with a direct (conscious) and a by-product (unconscious) product. Under certain conditions, this (previously unconscious) part of the result of an action becomes the key to solving a creative problem. The results of intuitive knowledge are logically proven and verified by practice over time.

In the scientific field, “Intuitionism” is known as an idealistic movement that has become widespread in foreign philosophy. Intuitionism contrasts rational knowledge with the direct “comprehension” of reality, based on intuition, understood as a special ability of consciousness, irreducible to sensory experience and discursive, logical thinking. Intuitionism is directly related to mysticism."

The process of scientific knowledge and artistic exploration of the world is reflected in a logical and evidential form. When implementing the process of intuitive cognition, it is impossible to recognize the signs with the help of which a conclusion can be drawn.

A. Einstein believed that there is no inductive method capable of studying and identifying the fundamental concepts of physics. This hypothesis was inspired by empiricism.

He believed that a scientist can independently identify hypotheses in order to explain this or that phenomenon. Many of his guesses were precisely the result of intuition.

Intuitionism, in accordance with discursive thinking, remains intuitionism, since even the inclusion of logic will allow one to find the truth.

It is worth noting that, according to I. G. Fichte, intuition is reflected in dialectical logic. And various actions are characteristic of intellectual intuition, which can allow one to derive intuitionism.

Various bursts of creativity occur in intuitive thinking. This allows the development of forms of real human thinking and allows the identification of scientific knowledge.

One of the first scientists in the twentieth century to introduce the concept of intuition into scientific circulation is the American economist Frank Knight. A generally recognized pioneer of the problem of uncertainty within the framework of modern economic theory, in his book Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, published in 1921, wrote: “Prediction of the future is in many ways similar to the phenomenon of memory on which it is based. When we want to remember a name or quote we have forgotten, we set a goal and find in the depths memory the necessary information (this often happens when we are busy with something extraneous) or we do not find it, but in any case we can say very little about what is actually happening in our brain, what the “technique” of this process is. Exactly. However, when we try to understand what to expect in a certain situation and how to adapt our behavior accordingly, we are likely to perform a lot of irrelevant mental operations, and the first thought that we can clearly recognize is that that the necessary decision has been made and the course of our actions has been determined. The processes occurring in our brain do not seem to be sufficiently meaningful, and in any case they have little in common with the formal-logical processes that are used by scientists in their research. We contrast these two types of processes, considering the first of them not as inference, but as “judgment,” “common sense,” or “intuition.”

In the work of Frank Knight, the concept of "intuition" is combined with the concepts of "analysis" and "synthesis". “We know as little about why we expect certain events to happen as we know about what happens in our brain while we remember a forgotten name. Undoubtedly, there is a certain analogy between subconscious “intuition” and logical reflection, since the goal in both cases is to foresee the future, and the possibility of making a forecast seems to be based on the uniformity of the world. Therefore, in both cases some operations of analysis and synthesis must take place."

The role of intuition in scientific creativity was purposefully studied by scientists who are usually called historians of science. One of the iconic figures in this scientific community is Thomas Kuhn.

In his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" there is a chapter called "Tacit Knowledge and Intuition." Thomas Kuhn notes: "This kind of knowledge is not achieved solely by verbal means. Rather, it is clothed in words together with concrete examples of how they function in practice; nature and words are comprehended together. Borrowing once again the apt phrase of M. Polanyi, I want to emphasize, that the result of this process is “tacit knowledge,” which is acquired through hands-on participation in scientific inquiry rather than through learning the rules governing scientific activity.”

Thomas Kuhn's point of view was born in polemics, in particular with Karl Popper, which is why his “defensive” words in defense of intuition are understandable. "This appeal to tacit knowledge and the corresponding discarding of rules allows us to highlight another problem that has troubled many critics and, in all likelihood, has served as the basis for accusations of subjectivity and irrationalism. Some readers have taken my position as if I were trying to build an edifice of science on unanalyzed, individual intuitive supports, and not on laws and logic."

The separation of tacit knowledge from knowledge according to Thomas Kuhn is that “we do not have direct access to what we know, no rules or generalizations in which this knowledge can be expressed.” Explaining his position, he wrote: “What I have opposed in this book is, therefore, the attempt, which became traditional after Descartes (but not before), to analyze perception as a process of interpretation, as an unconscious version of what we do after the act of perception, the integrity of perception deserves special attention, of course, due to the fact that such a significant part of past experience is embodied in the nervous system, which converts stimuli into sensations. A properly programmed perceptual mechanism is essential for survival."

Thus, within the framework of holistic perception, Thomas Kuhn was the first to combine the two concepts of “intuition” and “past experience,” thereby introducing intuition into the scientific field in a new format of “tacit knowledge” based on “past experience.”

The famous American sociologist Randall Collins in his work “Sociology: Science or Antiscience?” I also touched on the topic of intuition. In the chapter “The Role of Informal Concepts and Intuition in Theory,” he wrote: “The idea of ​​complete and strict formalization, operationalization and measurement of everything and everyone in a scientific theory is a chimera. At some point in the theory, informal concepts and intuitive leaps of thought are always found. There always exists a certain meta-theoretical attitude towards what is intellectually primary. A scientific theory provides an outline of a model of the world under study from a certain angle. Hypotheses are derivative from this model, and the process of their derivation itself includes intuitive leaps in the operationalization of concepts for empirical testing. always making another intuitive leap, deciding that such and such a particular measurement or other observation is actually relevant to a given theory. These intuitive or informal leaps are the subject around which (or, in many cases) theoretical discussions should take place."

As in Thomas Kuhn's position on intuition, he takes a “defensive” position. “But such leaps are completely justified simply because such is the world. They do not deprive us of the right to science, for in all sciences there are points where intuitive leaps are made. If natural scientists sometimes forget this and reason in a crude positivist manner as if they were not report “nothing but facts,” this is because in the process of accumulating scientific procedures they have already made successful intuitive leaps and now have working models that they intuitively apply to most of the phenomena they study.”

Just like Thomas Kuhn, Randall Collins uses the term tacit (hidden) knowledge: “Successfully developing science is possible even if there are areas of fundamental uncertainty in it, which belong to the sphere of unspoken, informal understanding. Tacit, hidden knowledge is also knowledge, because it works ".

Randall Collins made a tight connection between intuitive concepts and science. “A flexible empiricism, working where necessary, with imprecision and intuitive concepts, and leaving plenty of room for theoretical work that connects different facts, is the core of science.

There is a long tradition of pitting intuition against logic. Intuition is often placed above logic even in mathematics, where the role of rigorous proofs is especially great. To improve the method in mathematics, Schopenhauer believed, it is necessary first of all to abandon the prejudice - the belief that there is something superior to intuitive knowledge. B. Pascal distinguished between the “spirit of geometry” and the “spirit of insight.” The first expresses the strength and directness of the mind, manifested in the iron logic of reasoning, the second - the breadth of the mind, the ability to see deeper and perceive the truth as if in insight. For Pascal, even in science, the “spirit of insight” is independent of logic and stands immeasurably higher than it. Even earlier, some mathematicians argued that intuitive conviction surpasses logic, just as the dazzling brilliance of the Sun outshines the pale radiance of the Moon.

The excessive exaltation of intuition at the expense of rigorous evidence is unjustified. Logic and intuition do not exclude or replace each other. In the real process of cognition, they are, as a rule, closely intertwined, supporting and complementing each other. Proof sanctions and legitimizes the achievements of intuition; it minimizes the risk of contradiction and subjectivity that intuitive insight is always fraught with. Logic, as the mathematician G. Weyl put it, is a kind of hygiene that allows you to keep ideas healthy and strong. I. throws away all caution, logic teaches restraint.

Logical principles are not something given once and for all. They are formed in the centuries-old practice of cognition and transformation of the world and represent the purification and systematization of spontaneously developing “mental habits.” Growing out of an amorphous and changeable paralogical intuition, out of a direct, albeit unclear, “vision of the logical,” these principles always remain associated with the original intuitive “sense of the logical.” It is no coincidence that a rigorous proof means nothing even to a mathematician if the result remains incomprehensible to him intuitively.

Logic and intuition should not be opposed to each other; each of them is necessary in its place. A sudden intuitive insight can reveal truths that are hardly accessible to consistent, rigorous logical reasoning. However, reference to intuition cannot serve as a solid, much less final, basis for accepting any statements. I. leads to interesting new ideas, but it often also gives rise to errors and is misleading. Intuitive guesses are subjective and unstable; they need logical justification. To convince both others and oneself of an intuitively grasped truth requires extensive reasoning and proof.

Conclusion

In the first chapter, intuition is presented to us as something that appears out of nowhere, with a large coefficient of randomness. The terminology uses words such as insight and phenomenal phenomenon. So that one could compare intuition with something even magical and otherworldly. In my opinion, a more accurate definition of intuition is that of practicing intuitionist Laura Day: “Intuition is a nonlinear, non-empirical process of collecting and interpreting information in response to questions.”

In the second chapter we understand that a person uses intuition in almost all areas of his activity. And that there are many ways of intuitive knowledge. Almost everything around can serve as a source of answers: dreams, the world around us, clues in it in the form of signs, emotions, feelings, our own body, etc.

Graham Wallace clearly explains how the creative process works. Thanks to this, intuition no longer becomes such a mystical and spontaneous phenomenon, but a very concrete stage in comprehending the truth.

In philosophy, the interpretation of intuition is distinguished by its semantic and content diversity: from unconscious insight to a special and even higher form of knowledge. The problem of intuition in the history of philosophy did not have a self-sufficient significance and was considered in the context of the search for means and ways of reliable knowledge. The problem of intuition has its roots in ancient philosophy, which carried out these searches in two main directions - sensualistic and rationalistic, according to which the concepts of “sensual” and “intellectual” intuition were subsequently formed.

The rationalist concept of intuitive knowledge turned out to be, paradoxically, the most theoretically and logically vulnerable, and it was in this capacity that intuition acquired a truly problematic character.

We can say that intuition had many different interpretations from philosophy, which brought completely new opinions. But interest in this phenomenon and the process of analysis in diverse works made it possible to reveal the importance of intuition and its complexity in the study of logic and philosophy.

The concept of intuition could be considered as knowledge from the side of sensory content, that is, it had precisely a sensory form and concentration.

Intuition was also studied as a form of instinct, allowing one to first sense and understand any action of a particular organism, and was also distinguished by the unconscious principle of creativity (S. Freud).

Some currents of philosophy interpreted philosophy as some kind of revelation of God in the form of an unconscious process that is not compatible with the logic and practice of life experience.

But one of the general treatises of intuition can be called the moment of spontaneity in connection with the process of cognition, which has significant differences from logical thinking.

From the position of materialist dialectics, intuition also has some rational grain in accordance with the opinion about the unity of sensory and rational knowledge.

Scientific knowledge does not always have only a logical and evidential form. Sometimes a subject may relate to a complex situation, for example, in military affairs, when only intuition can make the right decision and here it has a particularly important function.

After all, intuition cannot be considered an unreasonable form of knowledge. On the other hand, all the signs along which the path to knowledge follows cannot be determined by intuitive thinking.

Thus, intuition is formed as a certain type of thinking, separate from other thinking processes, and on the other hand, it allows you to find out the “truth”, which has a high probability of truthfulness on the part of logical thinking.

That is, the use of intuition may be sufficient to establish the truth, but it is not always sufficient to prove a fact. That is why in in this case evidence is needed.

In conclusion, it must be said that it is very important not to overestimate or underestimate the role of intuition in the process of scientific knowledge.

Intuitive components are present to a greater or lesser extent in almost all types of scientific creativity. Therefore, it is quite obvious that if intuition helps us in obtaining new knowledge, then no matter how mysterious and incomprehensible this mechanism may seem, we must try to control it. For this purpose, for example, the achievements of modern psychology are applicable - work on overcoming subconscious barriers and stereotypes. Moreover, it is better not to “remake” a person, but to pay attention to these issues at the earliest stages of raising a creative personality. Also interesting are the methods of managing the cognitive process cultivated in the East (meditation, yoga, etc.). However, it seems somewhat questionable to use these methods specifically in scientific knowledge. It is also necessary to note the dangers that are fraught with excessive enthusiasm for attempts to artificially initiate intuition. It is necessary to clearly understand that only indirect and weak methods of influencing the psyche and brain are effective and safe.

In this sense, scientists are in a more advantageous position than people of other creative professions. Scientists, no matter how new knowledge is obtained in the most inexplicable way, are looking, firstly, for logical evidence of what they have received, and, secondly, for their confirmation in the real objective world. A person who, for example, is engaged in artistic creativity and relies too much on various kinds of intuitive ways of obtaining new things, risks losing touch with reality and even going crazy.

However, intuition in scientific knowledge occupies a less important place than, for example, in artistic creativity. The main reason is that science is the property of all humanity, while a poet or artist can create in his own closed world. Any scientist at the initial stage of his scientific development uses the works of other scientists, expressed in logically constructed theories and constituting the science of “today.” It is for scientific creativity that one should once again emphasize the importance of preliminary accumulation of experience and knowledge before intuitive insight and the need for logical presentation of the results after it.

Bibliography

What is more useful in life, intuitive flashes of consciousness or a strict scientific approach to solving a problem? What to believe, instant insight or scientific analysis? What is intuition - and how to explain it? What is more important - logic or intuitive feeling?

It has been proven that intuition is an innate human quality.

But animals also have intuition.

How then can a person treat this phenomenon as science or as a mysterious natural phenomenon?

Everyone knows that the sixth sense is much more developed in animals. Even domestic animals, anticipating various natural disasters, earthquakes and hurricanes, begin to hide or run away.

So, it means that animals are intuitively smarter than humans, they can see upcoming troubles, but humans cannot?

Unfortunately, this is the case today. Humanity relies more on the rationality of the logical thinking of the brain than on intuition.

The ancient concepts of intuition, which were once associated with the mind, consciousness and thought, have now been replaced by strict scientific theories in the fields of medicine, literature and psychology.

Was intuition previously developed in humans as well as in animals?

If earlier intuition helped primitive man find a safe place to live, gave tips in hunting and gathering, then over time the importance of intuition decreased.

Now intuition has become an assistant only for artists, investigators and writers. But here, too, this feeling is gradually being replaced by various technical devices.

For cavemen, intuition was simply necessary for survival.

What does science say about intuition?

There were debates about the scientific nature of intuition back in the ancient world.

Plato

For example, Plato considered intuition one of the most important tools for understanding the world. While the mind arrives at its decision over a long period of reasoning and study, intuition gives a solution immediately, in one flash, an instant insight. Plato believed that the mind is limited and cannot cognize the parallel world, and it is from there that all beginnings come to us. Intuition is capable of penetrating into the other perfect world, and instantly take the right decisions from there.

Aristotle

Aristotle did not agree with Plato's opinion. He was a supporter of a rational worldview, that is, the founder of the modern vision of the world. And he often spoke out against intuitive knowledge.

Descartes

But in the Middle Ages, intuition again took a leading position thanks to the mathematician and philosopher Descartes. It was him in modern world It is customary to call him the father of intuition. Descartes did not support any of the previously put forward hypotheses, he simply combined them. According to Descartes, intuition is not a flash of consciousness. According to his theory, intuition is the accumulation of a large amount of scientific knowledge and its subsequent analysis, and based on this analysis, obtaining the correct result.

So, for example, a carpenter cannot have an intuitive insight that contributes to the creation of an artistic masterpiece, because the carpenter does not even know how to hold a brush in his hands. An ingenious stool is what only a carpenter can create. And to create an artistic masterpiece you need artistic taste, many years of practice in handling a brush and paints, a large number of pencil sketches, in general, accumulated knowledge and scientific analysis.

Often our choices in life are based on intuitive feelings.

Later theories

Later, scientists again disagreed; it was decided that science and intuition are two different things.

• Because intuitive insights can flare up in a completely illiterate person, regardless of his education.
• Because intuition can arise from both a professor and a worker.

The scientist physicist Albert Einstein also considered intuition one of the main reasons for his discoveries.

Female intuition

• There is also an opinion that intuition is more subject to women. But women are mostly mystical.
• Men, on the other hand, have a more rational, mathematical approach to life. Logic is the strength of men.

Maybe that's why men always occupy more prestigious positions and higher-paying jobs. Men are always better at football and fishing, they have a garage - which means they are smarter than women. This means that the scientific mind is stronger than women's intuition.

How to put your intuition to your service?

How often in science fiction films the viewer admires the superpowers of the hero, and at the same time no one even suspects that each of the people has exactly the same abilities called intuition.

• There are hundreds of cases where people canceled their vacation trips, and then were horrified to learn that their plane had crashed.
• When students went to the exam, not knowing anything, and easily answered all the questions.
• When a woman chose the poorest and ugliest groom from a dozen applicants and then lived happily with him all her life.
• When a businessman, for reasons unknown to anyone, made a decision and as a result received 1000 percent of the profit.
• When an image appeared to an artist in a dream, and in the morning he painted a masterpiece.

One might wonder if this luck is due to simple intuition?

That's right, in all these cases the person was helped by intuition. Everyone has it, but it needs to be developed and worked on.

Behind a person’s luck is often hidden precisely the trust in intuitive clues that come as if from nowhere.

Sixth Sense

Every person has had moments in life when a decision had to be made not so much on the basis of known facts, but on the basis of inner instinct, or, in other words, intuition.

It is also called: “sixth sense”, “higher voice”, “advice of the subconscious” or “sudden vision”. And without focusing on how intuition arose, why it came to the rescue in this particular situation, a person believes and makes a decision that was prompted to him by his inner feeling.

Such unconditional faith in intuition is built on the human sense of truth. Therefore, we can safely say that intuition is the truth that comes from the depths.

Statistically, people are much more likely to cancel trips or miss planes that later crash.

But what is intuition from a material point of view?

• A divine gift that was given only to a select few?
• Super abilities that only people with a special mindset can develop?
• Or is intuition an innate quality of every person that is simply not developed, and needs to be developed, just like any part of the body?

Of course, the latter.

Scientists have long proven that intuition is an innate human property. Every inhabitant of the planet is endowed with intuition, regardless of race, nation or religion.

But, despite the fact that the task of intuition is one - to obtain knowledge, nevertheless, each person talks to it in his own way, in his own language. And sometimes without any language at all.

Intuition exists in each of us and it is possible to develop it.

Intuition can take many forms

• For some it comes in the form of a premonition or a voice from above.
• Some in the form of a sensation or unexpected emotion.

The only problem is that someone realizes their priceless gift, listens and trusts it from childhood. And some are skeptical about this, ignoring intuition, going into the depths of mental and logically conscious life.

• A person who wants to develop his intuition must understand in what form it comes to him (in the form of a sensation or emotion), and only then begin to develop it.

And, having developed this feeling, a person will be able to use intuition as a reliable source of correct knowledge and ready-made solutions.

Intuition is a direct connection between a person and the cosmos, and this connection is open to everyone, they just need to learn how to use it. Having learned to listen and trust this voice, a person will be able to achieve any goals and realize all his wildest fantasies.

Intuition will help in all areas, from family happiness before business. And then the world, which is now confused by mental contradictions and logical distortions, will become simple and clear.

But many skeptics argue that intuition cannot have exceptional knowledge. For example, she will not be able to accurately predict the winning combination of numbers on a lottery ticket.

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 type of knowledge, as a specific ability, as a mechanism of creative activity.

Philosophers define intuition as direct, without justification by evidence, comprehension, perception (from the Latin Intueri to look closely, carefully) of the 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 despite all the differences, the connection between intuition and 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 sensuality (sensations, perceptions, memory, imagination, emotions, will (“sensory intuition”)) and intelligence, logical thinking (“intellectual intuition”) are involved.

In the history of the doctrine of intuition, there have been attempts (Bergson and others) to sharply contrast intuition and intelligence, logic. This was especially true for artistic intuition. The introspection of outstanding masters of art (Eisenstein, Mikhoels, etc.) suggests the opposite. In acts artistic creativity, not to mention scientific and technical creativity, at an unconscious level, along with sensuality and images, conceptual and logical thinking actively works. An intuitive creative act involves compression in time, collapsing and transferring into the subconscious of certain algorithms. There is something in common here with the patterns of internal speech, where thoughts are expressed abbreviated. The logic of intuition is structurally similar to algorithmic conscious thinking. In the same way, all forms of intuitive sensibility retain structural similarity (but in a reduced form) with forms of consciousness. Intuition is a specific human ability, derived from consciousness. This is its fundamental difference from the unconscious mental activity of animals, from the “animal instinct”, which is instinctive in nature. The instinct of animals does not rise to the level of consciousness; human consciousness “falls” to the subconscious level of “flair”. Why is this being done?

Thanks to the “reduction”, “compression”, “collapse” of mental processes, a colossal gain in time occurs. Calculations show that at the unconscious mental level, approximately 10,000,000 times more information is processed per unit of time than at the conscious level. In addition, significant energy savings occur. It has been noted many times that an intuitive act is performed quickly and “easily,” which indicates excess energy potential.

Intuition usually manifests itself in inextricable connection with a special state of elevation of spiritual and physical strength. In intuitive creativity, this state is known as inspiration. . In the process of intuitive comprehension, the functional activity of all analyzers (sense organs) increases, as a result of which memory improves. Very often, a plan or an idea is intuitively formed when a person’s attention (and attention is always a waste of energy) is focused on completely different work. This echoes the well-known call to “think aside” contained in the statements of such prominent scientists as Lagrange, Poincaré, Hadamard, Einstein, Wertheimer, etc. It deserves attention the fact that intuitive understanding is often characteristic of naturally gifted, but not yet sufficiently erudite people. This indicates that intuition can occur when preliminary conscious analysis is incomplete. The implementation of an intuitive act stimulates self-improvement and the desire for creative activity.

When the result of the work of intuition be it an image, an idea or a volitional impulse is “ripe”, a person feels a state reminiscent of prenatal. The mathematician Gauss’s well-known complaint is that, having long-prepared results, he does not know how to consciously approach them. About the table chemical elements The words are attributed to D.I. Mendeleev: “Everything came together in my head, but I can’t express it in a table.” There comes a moment, sudden, random, unprogrammed, when the matured result instantly overcomes the threshold of consciousness. This “flash” of consciousness is called differently: “inspiration”, “illumination”, “insight”.

Although “insight” cannot be arbitrarily caused, conditions have been established through experience that facilitate and bring closer the overcoming of the threshold of consciousness. Several such conditions can be named.

Fixing and repeating the conditions of the problem that needs to be solved. Concentrate your attention on them. Fix the framework within which thought should move. As a result, the subthreshold probability of the desired result increases. A happy accident, like the last drop that overflows a cup, can lead to insight in one push, a leap. The ability to wait and patience are important. Time spent in reasonable inaction and rationality consists in not interfering with the unconscious process works for intuitive insight. In this regard, the technique of meditation with its techniques for focusing attention and overcoming distractions can be useful.

The absence of stereotypes, prejudices, biases and other “bad habits” is another important condition for overcoming the threshold. Sometimes, to obtain a fundamentally new solution, it is useful to invite not an experienced professional with established views, but a beginner free from stereotypes.

Periodic switching to another, especially contrasting activity. During the time of “switching off”, rest, the threshold can decrease so much that returning to the task immediately leads to its solution.

Eliminating distractions that occur not during breaks, but during the process of working on a task. The presence of such factors during work increases the threshold for decision-making and prevents its emergence.

Reducing energy costs by eliminating all unnecessary, unnecessary factors that do not help the solution. The “core” of the task should be presented in the most economical, compact and visual form (clear handwriting, placement in a smaller space, good lighting, comfortable posture, etc.). Stanislavsky emphasized that in order to “lure out” inspiration, you need techniques, sometimes ridiculously simple and routine.

The decisive factor for upliftment, which is called inspiration, is the mobilization and concentration of energy. Fatigue, exhaustion, hunger, oxygen starvation (hypoxia), poisoning, illness, etc. are not conducive to the work of intuition. On the contrary, rest, excess strength, health contribute creative success. Poets and artists, and people of other professions, often turn to artificial stimulants in search of spiritual uplift: coffee, tobacco, and often cocaine, LSD. All these means stimulate brain energy. But there are also purely individual techniques that increase blood flow to the head to the detriment of other organs of the body. Schiller put his feet in the ice, Milton and Descartes threw their heads on the sofa, Leibniz thought, as a rule, in horizontal position, Rossini worked while lying in bed, Rousseau pondered his works under the bright midday sun with his head open. The weather, especially temperature, has a certain influence. A particularly beneficial effect of hot months has been noticed. It is known that all the ancient great civilizations, when many creative achievements were achieved, arose in latitudes with an optimal average annual temperature of about +20 C°.

Intuition is helped by a hint, which is often played by a specific object that has many of the characteristics of the desired solution. When the decision is ripe, sometimes a random hint can play the role of the final push, causing a discharge, explosion, or insight. A widely known example is from the biography of F.A. Kekule: monkeys locked in a ring suggested to him the ring-shaped structure of the benzene formula. A specific image is especially effective as a “hint”. Many artists and inventors are familiar with the phenomenon when some features of an image lead to others and the image spontaneously acquires new remarkable details and features. In a matter of seconds, an abstract idea turns into a complete concrete solution. In general, an unconscious leap from an idea, a concept to an image and from an image to a concept is an essential feature of the act of intuition .

When the conditions conducive to overcoming the threshold of consciousness are not met, the ability to holistically, directly “grasp” an object is disrupted as another important feature of intuition. In this case, the unconscious process of “grasping” and comprehending the whole is replaced by consideration of details and logical reasoning. Such a substitution is clearly visible in a disease called “agnosia”: the patient can describe an object, listing its details and characteristics, and yet not recognize the object as something integral. Their scope of perception is sharply narrowed. This is also observed in normal people when perceiving “large” systems. A person cannot immediately, at one glance, form a complete picture of an unfamiliar city, large factory or architectural structure, etc. It takes time and re-examination. And only people endowed with strong intuition are capable of a holistic perception of complex objects as simple and indecomposable. Their complexity turns into a simple and uniform quality . This is exactly how works of art (portraits, complex plot compositions, etc.) are perceived by people with developed artistic intuition. At the same time, they “grasp” the essence of the work, its deep meaning that does not lie on the surface of conscious discretion.

The fact that only the result of intuitive processing of information enters consciousness, and the process itself is not realized, sometimes it seems to a person that someone else, a higher person, was guiding him with his hand or pen. At the moment of the highest creative upsurge, a foreign impulse is recognized as dominant. For thousands of years, other motivations have been explained by the intervention of gods, muses, “geniuses,” demons, the “six-winged Seraphim,” “voices,” etc. For example, Descartes believed that a divine revelation had come to him, he fell to his knees and began to pray when the idea of ​​analytical geometry came to him. In the 19th century The religious-mystical explanation is being replaced by a psychological explanation. The place of God and the muses was taken by the “unconscious”. At the same time, the unconscious “voice” was often understood as “extrapersonal,” “impersonal,” “transpersonal,” etc. The unconscious self is part of the human structure. A full-fledged creative act is a dialectical unity of the impulses of the real, conscious self and the subconscious, intuitive self. Today, this has found additional confirmation in research on the asymmetric functions of the left (conscious) and right (unconscious) hemispheres. In the creative process they work simultaneously. When the left hemisphere is partially disabled in cases of illness (for example, a famous composer due to a stroke), creative functions may be preserved. This happens when the right hemisphere takes on part of the functions of the left, the functions of the conscious Self.

The personal nature of intuition is clearly visible in such manifestations as empathy, “feeling”, getting used to, and transformation. In these intuitive acts, widely represented in creativity, especially (but not only!) in art, the creator’s self unconsciously identifies (identifies) itself with another person, with another self, real or imaginary. In the intense dialogue of these two individuals, the process of creativity takes place, be it artistic, scientific, inventive activity or acts of ordinary verbal communication. It has been proven that speech is a unity of conscious and unconscious, intuitive processes. For example, information theory explains the presence of two opposing tendencies in verbal communication: a conscious tendency towards affirmative and connective (conjunction “and”) forms and an unconscious tendency towards negation (“not”) and divisive (conjunction “or”) structures.

Since human personality involves not only the work of the brain (physiology) and soul (psychology), but also the work of the spirit, there is reason to postulate, along with sensory and intellectual intuition, the existence of spiritual intuition. Unconscious comprehension, experience, understanding of spiritual (worldview) kinship with another person is precisely the core of acts of empathy. And here we can agree with famous philosopher Bergson that the highest manifestation of spiritual intuition are acts of artistic creativity and artistic perception. The unique and great role of art in the life of mankind is connected with this.

Today there is much debate about whether “thinking” machines can simulate the processes of intuition. With a high degree of probability, we can assume with regard to spiritual intuition that it is not subject to machines. There is no algorithm in the work of the individual, unique, free human spirit; the result of this work, in principle, cannot be predicted. It cannot be fully formalized, which means it cannot be transferred to machines. In this case, the famous dispute between the “physicists” and the “lyricists” is resolved in favor of the “lyricists.”

Asmus V.F. The problem of intuition in philosophy and mathematics. M., 1965
Bunge M. Intuition and Science. M., 1967
Karmin A.S., E.P. Khaikin. Creative intuition in science. M., 1971
Nalchadzhyan A.A. Some psychological and philosophical problems of intuitive knowledge. M., 1972
Luk A.N. Psychology of creativity. M., 1978
Golitsyn G.A. Information and creativity. M., 1997

The question of intuition, its role in the process of scientific knowledge, the physiological and psychological mechanisms of its action last years is beginning to attract increasing attention from philosophers, psychologists, cyberneticists and specialists in other fields of science. The question of intuition itself is not new: many philosophers and scientists in the past have repeatedly addressed its discussion.

Currently, thanks to the beginning of the development of problems of creative thinking in psychology and cybernetics, research in the field of methodology and logic of scientific research, as a result of which the boundaries of formalized and non-formalizable moments of cognition are more clearly defined, intuition, along with its purely epistemological consideration, is beginning to be studied using natural science methods. But nevertheless, the problem of intuition still remains an important problem of epistemology. The epistemological consideration of this problem significantly influences its natural scientific study.

In Soviet philosophical literature in recent years, one can note a certain increase in attention to the problem of intuition, which is reflected in the publication of a number of works that directly or indirectly address this problem." In these works, the problem of intuition is considered as part, as a moment of the dialectical-materialist doctrine of knowledge .

• 1 Among these works, we should first of all note the detailed monograph by V. F. Asmus “The Problem of Intuition in Philosophy and Mathematics”, the book by Yu. Borodai “Imagination and Theory of Knowledge”.

A joint, undifferentiated consideration of these statements can lead to a confusion of philosophical camps and to an incorrect assessment of their meaning and role.

The prevalence in the study of the problem of intuition of the interests of science and their deep understanding often largely compensate for the philosophical inconsistency of M. Bunge and lead to the fact that he makes a certain contribution to the development of this problem.

The undoubted advantage of M. Bunge's philosophical point of view is his consideration of the development of scientific knowledge, taking into account the social situation in which the development of science occurs. It shows both the social conditioning of science and, in turn, its influence on all aspects of the political and moral life of society. Contrary to the agnostic, irrationalistic interpretation of science, widespread in modern bourgeois philosophy, M. Bunge proceeds from the unlimited nature of the development of scientific knowledge and from the possibilities of an increasing application of scientific methods to all spheres of social life.

In the history of philosophy, the problem of intuition has become especially important in connection with the justification of the reliability of knowledge. This problem arose very acutely in the history of modern times during the emergence of natural sciences. The development of the latter required further development of mathematics. At the same time, the widespread use of experimental and mathematical methods in physics and astronomy raised the question of the relationship between experience and theory, especially the nature of mathematical theories and methods of proving their reliability.

In the 16th century a number of philosophers, both materialists and idealists, proceeded from the recognition of the unconditional logical universality and the necessity of mathematical knowledge. Any theorem proven in mathematics is valid not only for a single object, but also for any object from the class of objects in relation to which the proof is being carried out. Logical necessity and universality of mathematical knowledge, according to representatives of rationalism Descartes and Spinoza. Leibniz, cannot be the result of experience and empirical induction, which make knowledge only probable due to the limitations of experience. Mathematical knowledge, as opposed to experimental knowledge, is considered as a set of analytical statements.

The question arises where such signs of mathematical knowledge as universality and necessity come from. If mathematical knowledge is mediated by proof, then it cannot be of a universal and necessary nature, since the proof cannot continue indefinitely. The requirement for the universal and necessary nature of mathematical knowledge presupposes the existence of provisions that cannot be proven and are accepted without proof. Their truth is no longer mediated by anything and is directly perceived by the mind. This is how the concept of intellectual intuition arises in philosophy.

Intellectual intuition was considered as an act of rational knowledge. It was not separated from other types of knowledge and was not opposed to them, but was considered only their necessary prerequisite and completion. Intellectual intuition presupposed the existence of discursive, logical thinking, as well as a sensory reflection of the world. Moreover, it was precisely considerations of a logical order that guided the rationalists in their separation of the mind from sensuality, since only the direct perception of the mind leads to the necessary and universal meaning of the axioms of mathematics.

M. Bunge, considering the intellectual intuition of the philosophers of the 17th century, strictly distinguishes it from the later irrationalistic concepts of intuition, which are contained in the teachings of a number of bourgeois reactionary philosophers. He views the intellectual intuition of Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza as “a rapid inference, so rapid that its mediated and scientific character is usually not realized” (p. 36). For him, the rational nature of this kind of intuition is undeniable.

When analyzing intellectual intuition, M. Bunge reveals a historical approach, seeing in it a battle cry in the battle with obscurantism, “with its unintelligible and empty verbosity” (p. 11). The doctrine of intellectual intuition, with all its shortcomings, was directed against medieval scholasticism.

The undoubted advantage of the section on intellectual intuition is the analysis of certain provisions, the truth of which, as Descartes, for example, believed, can be seen directly. The intuitive nature of some statements of arithmetic, as M. Bunge convincingly shows, Descartes associates only with the fact of the existence of ordinary arithmetic, which in fact is one “of an infinite number of conceivable arithmetic systems” (p. I). The transitivity of equality is not at all intuitive. As the works of Piaget, to which the author refers, have shown, the concept of transitivity „„ is associated with the logical ordering of thinking TnaiA 2 aapbIBH 0 indicates M. Bunge, is one of the properties of “f 0 ™ IOCTb > equality” (p. 12). "about ^ichv "formal

The central problem of the doctrine of intellectual intuition is its epistemological justification, the identification of the technical premises on which it is based. As such prerequisites, M. Bunge points out “the search for unshakable principles, reliable and self-evident truths” (p. 37). Such principles, he notes, must satisfy the theses of fundamentality and non-heating.

Zht gGshGzn Ya aniya Yu in absolute °™. The infallibility thesis requires recognition as scientific knowledge of such knowledge that is unshakable and does not need to be contradicted. Intellectual intuition, for all its positive role, turned out to be insufficient to establish at least any hundred Sh S T N0G0 p R and ™ a mathematics or empirical Sciences"

ioSon XVH and ° LKU "P ° OPINION M i Bunge" it is in the teachings of philosophers of the 17th century. associated with the theses of fundamentality and infallibility. Many of the defects of the doctrine of intellectual intuition are based on the consistency of these theses. This is the final conclusion of M. Bunge about the essence of the teaching of philosophers about intellectual intuition. i^tsshv oo

All these are the words of a scientist who knows how truths are obtained in science; therefore, his disdainful attitude towards the metaphysical knowledge of T and AVLENIY ° T8K, called absolute and unshakable, is understandable. But can any desire to substantiate analysis, to identify its true, reliable premises, be called dogmatism? Along with dogmatism there is relativism. A one-sided relativistic interpretation of knowledge is no less dangerous for science than its dogmatic interpretation. This was understood to one degree or another by representatives of the doctrine of intellectual intuition.

Thus, Descartes, fighting the dogmatism of scholasticism, put forward the principle of doubt, a critical attitude towards any statement. But the principle of doubt, applied one-sidedly, leads to extreme relativism, which generally destroys all knowledge. In order to put a limit to skepticism, which, if continued endlessly, turns into nonsense, Descartes puts forward his famous principle: “I think, therefore I exist.” The conviction of the truth of this principle does not arise from proof, but from the immediate discretion of the mind. In itself, this thesis is certainly idealistic, resulting from the absolutization of the fact that mental experience is immediately given to every person. But here it is important to emphasize that, while developing the doctrine of intellectual intuition, Descartes was more or less aware of the danger of both a one-sided dogmatic and relativistic interpretation of knowledge.

In Spinoza’s materialist system, the doctrine of intellectual intuition had as its goal, along with the identification of reliable premises of knowledge, the substantiation of the objectivity of moral principles based on reliable knowledge. It is known that ethical relativism is very often associated with epistemological relativism. For Spinoza, the dogmatic nature of the religious teaching on morality was unacceptable, but at the same time he understood the inconsistency of ethical relativism.

The problem of intuition in the rationalism of the 17th century. was developed in connection with the tasks of building a system of scientific knowledge, in connection with the problems of validity and evidence of this knowledge. What criteria should scientific knowledge satisfy, how to obtain and build scientific knowledge? These are the questions that worried Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza, and their doctrine of intellectual intuition was subordinated to the answer to these questions.

Therefore, the doctrine of intellectual intuition in the philosophy of the 17th century. was not directly related to the theses about the infallibility and fundamentality of knowledge, and here M. Bunge is wrong. This doctrine simply spoke of the existence of statements whose truth is directly perceived by the mind. The question of where these provisions come from and where the method of understanding them comes from is already connected with the justification of intellectual intuition, and here we have different points of view among philosophers of the 17th century, determined primarily not by theses about the infallibility and fundamentality of knowledge, but by their initial fichoso*-skimi positions * *

Within the framework of rationalism of the 17th century. the question arose of how intellectual intuition arises, what it “contemplates.” If “contemplation” of the universal is not given in experience, then where do true, universal and necessary ideas corresponding to objects come from? Where does the ability to directly perceive the truth come from if it is not formed in the process of experience? The answer to this question inevitably led to the idea of ​​God and pre-established harmony. For idealism, such an answer was quite acceptable, while within the framework of Spinoza’s materialist system (and this reflected the opposition of materialism and idealism in the justification of intellectual intuition) such a solution to the question turned out to be unacceptable. But the weakness and limitations of Spiposa’s materialism led, when solving the question of the possibility of intellectual intuition, to a dogmatic statement about the parallelism of attributes, which in turn led to hylozoism and the problem of error, which is completely insoluble within the framework of his system.

M. Bunge, while correctly criticizing the desire to find unshakable absolutely reliable foundations of knowledge, at times clearly gets carried away, losing sight of the danger of relativism. It is hardly possible to accept unconditionally the statement that “there is almost no certainty in the empirical sciences.” It is true that the truth of even axioms and postulates is relative. But in this regard, should they be called only hypotheses, and even more so conditional assumptions (see page 37). It is correct that the development of science does not simply boil down to the elimination of doubts, but it is not an accumulation of them, as the author can sometimes understand (pp. 158-159). The author, deeply revealing the dialectics of knowledge, sometimes falls into one-sidedness, overemphasizing the relative, conditional nature of knowledge.

Ratio problem true knowledge and false, reliable and probable is decided on the basis of Lenin’s doctrine of absolute and relative truth. This teaching deeply and comprehensively examines how the truth is known, how the aspects of the absolute and the relative are correlated in it. It completely overcomes the dogmatic and relativistic view of knowledge. Weakness of teaching, philosophers of the 17th century. about intellectual intuition is not that it is recognized as a method of knowledge, exists as a certain type of knowledge, and is a direct fixation of the actually observable side of human cognitive activity.

Sensation, acting as the source of all possible knowledge, has the property of immediacy, since it directly records the individual properties of an object in the form of certain information about them. But even at the level of sensations, there is a mediation of sensations by the previous level of practice and knowledge, the goals of knowledge, etc. Direct knowledge, which gives sensation, concerns only individual properties of the object. “The concept is not something immediate...,” emphasized V.I. Lenin, “only the sensation of “red” (“this is red”), etc. is immediate.” Knowledge of the laws of an object is achieved as a result of a whole series of interconnected forms of mediation and proof and testing of it in practice, which reveals the limitations of the original sensory knowledge. Therefore, recognizing the direct nature of sensory intuition, one must always keep in mind its limitations and the need for its further mediation by thinking and testing in practice.

Associated with even more complex mediation is the direct nature of intellectual intuition. Indeed, there are provisions, axioms that, at the achieved level of development of thinking, can be considered as truths that are immediately obvious. Spontaneity in this case is relative. It is a characteristic of provisions that act as immediate in relation to the provisions derived from them. Considered in themselves, they appear as the result of previous mediation. Ultimately, the immediacy of these provisions is mediated by practice. It is only through the mediation of practice that they are perceived as directly true.

In modern bourgeois philosophy, irrationalism and mysticism are most clearly expressed in intuitionism. Representatives of intuitionism contrast intuition with both sensory and rational knowledge. Intuition, from their point of view, is an irrational act of cognition. An act in which the opposition between subject and object, knowledge and being is supposedly overcome. The result of such overcoming is the removal of the opposition between materialism and idealism, rationalism and irrationalism, reason and faith. In fact, iptuityists build reactionary idealistic systems in which logical thinking is criticized and belittled. Intuition is interpreted in the spirit of mystical ideas about inspiration, insight, merging with the divine, etc.

• V.I. Lenin, Poly. collection cit.. vol. 29. p. 253.

M. Bunge, with his criticism of intuitionism, complements the existing criticism of intuitionism in Soviet philosophical literature. He evaluates intuitionism as an attempt to put to rest “all intellectual problems, to overthrow reason and planned experience” and as a means of combating rationalism, empiricism and materialism (p. 18).

The undoubted merit of the author is the disclosure of the social role of intuitionist philosophy, the reactionary nature of political and ethical teachings based on this philosophy. “Ethical and axiological intuitionism,” he writes, “patronizes authoritarianism,” since the assessment of human behavior is left to “the thoughtless impulse of the individual or the will of the enlightened individual” (p. 34).

M. Bunge sees in intuitionist philosophy a great social evil. It was this philosophy and its representatives, Dilthey, Bergson, Husserl, regardless of their personal political sympathies and antipathies, that contributed to the formation of fascist ideology. Intuitive philosophy created fertile ground for the flourishing of anti-intellectualism and pseudosciences. M. Bunge writes that “of all varieties of dogmatic philosophy, intuitionism is the most dangerous, because it does not respect tools checks- intelligence and action that others take into account. This is the only one self-affirming a philosophy that needs neither argument nor proof” (p. 162).

Comparing the main provisions of the philosophy of iptuitivism with the real development of knowledge, the author convincingly shows the anti-scientific nature of this philosophy. Only ignorance of the real history of science, emphasizes M. Bunge, can explain Bergson's statement about the inability of science to express movement with its unity of discontinuity and continuity. The assertion that “step-by-step thinking is not able to comprehend becoming,” since concepts are static and isolated from one another, ignores the fact that science creates concepts not only with static content, but also with dynamic ones. In addition, it also ignores the fact that every statement correlates concepts, due to which “the latter are never piled up in heaps, like not tied up friend bricks with a friend” (p. 25). The continuous nature of a large number of principles of physics and chemistry, contrary to the opinion of Bergson, proves that science captures continuity. extracts that

In contrast to the irrationalistic point of view of Berjrcm ™, who considered the qualitatively new to be inexplicable, Bunge develops a “dialectical view of the relationship between the new and the old. He emphasizes that it is necessary to strictly distinguish the explainability of the new” as a result of the development of the old from the irreducibility of the new to the old “Science,” writes M. Bunge, - contrary to the efforts of some meta-" scientists, does not try to reduce the new unfamiliar to the old and the limits of "everyday experience and common sense", gives us the opportunity to "explain everything that appears at the level of common sense radically new, mysterious” (p. 20). The point of view of intuitionism is not a point of view superior to science, as its representatives claim, but a point of view of common sense, only idealistically processed. I

The history of the development of science shows that revealing the essence of things is, first of all, formulating the laws to which they obey. Such disclosure requires consideration of things in their connections and relationships. The relationship point of view is leading in modern science. Bergson and Husserl, contrary to this point of view, insist on considering the essence of things as such, outside their real relationships, thereby finding themselves captive of pre-scientific, primitive ideas.

Revealing the epistemological premises of intuitionism, M. Junge calls “the search for reliability and fundamental principles the main source of intuitionism” (p. 23). The author considers the requirements of infallibility and fundamentality of knowledge as the springs of “phenomenological intuitionism” (p. 30). Considering the requirements of infallibility and fundamentality of knowledge as epistemological prerequisites for the doctrine of intuition of the philosophers of the 17th century. (Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza) and intuitionist philosophers (Bergson, Husserl), the author brings these views extremely close together. M. Bunge himself repeatedly emphasizes the significant difference in the understanding of intuition, which is contained in the works of Descartes, Spinoza, from its understanding, which is contained in the works of intuitionist philosophers. The question of what is the reason for this difference cannot, however, be answered if all the teachings of bourgeois philosophy about intuition are directly derived from the requirement of infallibility and inviolability of knowledge, as the author does.

In the idealistic aprioristic concepts of intuition of some philosophers XVII- XVIII centuries there were certain rudiments of intuitionism, but for its development into a holistic philosophical teaching, it was necessary, first of all, such social conditions under which the discovery of any difficulties in the development of science began to turn against science itself. The reactionary nature of intuitionism most fully revealed the reactionary character of bourgeois philosophy as a whole, generated by the social conditions of imperialism. Therefore, if the doctrine of intuition among many philosophers of the 17th century. was a response to the real needs of developing science, then the philosophy of intuitionism became a means of combating science. A

The views of representatives of intuitionism reflected in a distorted form the crisis of the metaphysical way of thinking and the inability of bourgeois philosophy to overcome this crisis. All criticism by representatives of intuitionism of logical thinking, if it makes sense, is only in relation to its metaphysical interpretation. The limitedness and contemplation of the metaphysical mind is considered as the failure of logical thinking in general, which is contrasted with a super-rational vision of the world. In the criticism by representatives of intuitionism of the limited, contemplative nature of the metaphysical mind, they point to a truly existing connection between thinking and the active practical activity of a person, but this connection in the philosophy of intuitionism finds a one-sided, distorted reflection.

Bergson's teaching on intuition emphasizes the connection between thinking and production. But the connection of thinking with production and the resulting conditioning of thinking by practice is considered as the reason for the limitations of the human mind. Since, according to Bergson, the production from which thinking grows consists of creating the form of an object out of matter, thinking is capable to some extent of reflecting only inanimate matter. Thinking is supposedly incapable of grasping, with the help of its categories, living matter with its variability and continuity. In his discussions of the limitations of thinking, Bergson does not take into account the specifics of human practice, identifying it With"animal practice". It is not surprising that with such a limited, or rather distorted, understanding of practice, a doctrine arises that distorts the actual essence of thinking.

Another major representative of intuitionism, Husserl, criticizing the mechanistic identification of the ideal side of consciousness with its biological and physiological mechanisms, absolutizes the specificity of thinking, proclaims the semantic side of thinking as the determining sphere of all existence. For Husserl, “being is meaning.” This position unilaterally, metaphysically absolutizes one of the most important moments of human interaction with the outside world.

A big and important problem in M. Bunge's book is the problem of intuitionism in mathematics. This problem is associated with a whole complex of philosophical and actually mathematical problems, such as the nature of mathematical objects, the meaning of the concept of existence in mathematics, the relationship between mathematics and logic, the limits of applicability of the law of excluded middle, the nature of the prerequisites for using the method of complete induction in proof, etc.

Intuitionism arose at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. as one of the directions in the substantiation of mathematics. Characteristics intuitionism as a direction in the foundation of mathematics is the rejection of the concept of actual infinity, the basic concept of classical mathematics and logic, the rejection, contrary to the views of representatives of logicism, of logic as a science that precedes mathematics, and the consideration of intuitive persuasiveness (intuition) as the last foundation of mathematics.

The discovery of the so-called paradoxes of set theory, which G. Cantor laid as the basis of mathematics, aroused suspicion about the harmony and rigor of all mathematics. In the justification of mathematics in late XIX and the beginning of the 20th century. a crisis has clearly emerged. The criticism of classical mathematics by representatives of intuitionism Brouwer, G. Weil, A. Heiting and others led to a deepening of this crisis and significantly contributed to the formulation of important problems in the foundation of mathematics and logic.

Representatives of intuitionism in substantiating mathematics proceeded from the concept of potential infinity. In connection with the acceptance of only potential infinity, they began to interpret the concept of the existence of mathematical objects as their effective construction.

The intuitionistic understanding of existence led to the idea of ​​the limited applicability of the law of excluded middle only to finite aggregates, and to the refusal to use the method of contradiction in proving existence.

In contrast to logicism, representatives of intuitionism argue that mathematics as a science is free from logical premises. Hence, only intuition can serve as the only source of mathematics.

M. Bunge gives a detailed analysis of all the positive and negative aspects of intuitionism as a direction in mathematics. He connects the analysis of the intuitionistic trend in the foundation of mathematics with a discussion of the fundamental philosophical and own problems of mathematics.

First of all, he most decisively separates intuitionism as a direction in the foundation of mathematics from the philosophy of intuitionism. M. Bunge writes: “Neo-intuitionism is far from being childish or a complete anti-intellectualist declamation. On the contrary, it represents a response to naturally posed difficult problems that occupied such serious and profound thinkers as A. Poincaré, G. Weil, Brouwer, Heyting (p. 45). He associates the emergence of intuitionism with a reaction “to the exaggerations of logicism and formalism”, with attempts to “save mathematics from the catastrophe that, apparently, was foreshadowed at the beginning of our century by the discovery of paradoxes in set theory” (p. 45).

M. Bunge supports the claims of intuitionist views of logic, which view all formal logic as subject to possible subsequent revision (p. 50). But he does not agree to consider intuitive statements more reliable than logically derived ones, since this implies the possibility of contrasting the intuitive with the logical. In this regard, he develops interesting thoughts about the relationship between the development of formal logic and the development of other sciences, revealing their mutual influence.

The author agrees that the essence of mathematical creativity is not reduced to purely formal, deductive conclusions, that it, in addition, presupposes a vision of the problem, the inventing of adequate premises, a guess about suitable relationship and building bridges between different areas of mathematics. But to assert, he notes, that mathematical research is completely independent of logic is to express a position “relating to psychology mathematics” (p. 53). The correctness of this position can be accepted only conditionally in the sense that “mathematicians are usually not aware” of the use of logic (p. 53).

When we talk about the relationship of intuitionism to the logical and formal foundations of mathematics, we are not talking about their denial, but about their absolutization. Representatives of intuitionism do not deny logic: they even create their own so-called intuitionistic logic. But, opposing the absolutization of the logical and formal foundations of mathematics, representatives of intuitionism, when analyzing a certain stage of mathematical creativity, generally separate the intuitive from the logical.

Considering the role of intuition in mathematics, M. Bunge points out the presence of contradictions, vulnerable sides in the views of intuitionists on its role, which they actually have as a result of the separation of intuition from logic and experience (GSM pp. 57-58).

Intuitionism drew attention to the problem of the existence of mathematical objects, which was uncritically interpreted by a number of mathematicians. The identification of the existence of mathematical objects with the existence of physical objects led to the revival of Pythagoreanism, Platonism in views on the existence of mathematical objects, to its purely speculative consideration, which, of course, could not satisfy mathematics. As a reaction to such consideration, a formalist interpretation of the problem of the existence of mathematical objects arose, which reduces these objects to symbols, signs drawn on paper. Intuitionists proceed from the meaningful nature of the concepts of mathematics. But the content of these concepts is reduced to mental constructions based on initial intuitions.

The meaningful and constructive approach of representatives of intuitionism to the problem of the existence of mathematical objects had a certain positive significance in the development of mathematics and logic. The intuitionistic understanding of problems of existence in mathematics stimulated “the search for new, direct proofs of well-known theorems of mathematics, as well as the reconstruction of previously established concepts (for example, the concept real number)" (p. 86).

But at the same time, he believes that the intuitionistic understanding of the problem of existence brings certain damage to the development of mathematics. He does not deny the cognitive value behind existence theorems, even if they only state that, for example, every equation with any numerical coefficients, rational, real or complex, has roots among complex numbers, but do not indicate how to find these roots. He writes “that existence theorems, even if they do not enable us to individuate the objects whose existence they establish, allow us to draw inferences that may ultimately lead to an effective, even if only approximate, calculation” (p. 64) . In the intuitionistic understanding of existence, he sees the danger of demolishing “many useful and beautiful structures,” such as the theory of functions of a real variable.

M. Bunge develops interesting considerations about the relationship between logical, epistemological and psychological aspects when analyzing statements in mathematics and science in general. Firstly, he emphasizes the fallacy and harm for the development of science of mixing these aspects. Secondly, based on the analysis of these aspects, he emphasizes the limitations of formalism, logicism and intuitionism as directions in the substantiation of mathematics. Evaluating the results of Gödel's theorem for the justification of mathematics, he writes: “The existence of formally unprovable true statements does not confirm either the existence of pure intuition or the need to accept logic based on the theory of knowledge. What the intuitionist may rightly demand, on the other hand, is the development except formal logic, methodological logic, which would explain and formulate pragmatist expressions - “provable p”, “unprovable p”, “refutable p”, “plausible p”, “confirmed p” - and all corresponding to them, found in the presentation of scientific hypotheses" (page 79).

M. Bunge correctly points out a number of features of mathematical knowledge that distinguish it from the knowledge of the so-called “empirical sciences”. But at times he clearly exaggerates the significance of these features, which leads to a sharp contrast between mathematics and experience. Considering the problem of the nature of mathematics, the author repeatedly speaks about the apriority of its axioms and judgments (see pp. 15, 16). He writes: “as to the pure or a priori nature of mathematics, the vast majority of metascientists now agree with this thesis, with the exception mainly of materialists and pragmatists” (p. 53). Of course, the connection between mathematical concepts and experience is more complex, more indirect than in the “empirical sciences,” but nevertheless it exists. Extreme formalization, carried out in order to give the greatest possible generality to mathematical methods, requires exclusively high degree abstraction from qualitatively different classes of objects. Such abstraction leads to the fact that mathematical proofs exclude any direct reference to experience and experiment, since such a reference would limit the scope of applicability of the mathematical theory. But all these features of mathematics, as well as its other features, do not make mathematics an a priori, completely non-experimental science.

In general, correctly revealing the reasons for the emergence of intuitionism and its role in the foundation of mathematics, the author at times returns again to the theses of fundamentality and infallibility, which, in his opinion, gave rise to “philosophical intuitionism and mathematical intuitionism” (p. 59). It is hardly possible to agree with the position that the limitation of the sphere of action of two-valued logic by representatives of intuitionism is associated with the dogma of infallibility (see p. 74). These author's statements are incomprehensible within the framework of his own analysis of intuitionism. They bring intuitionism and mathematical intuitionism too close together, which contradicts the author’s own point of view.

When considering the problem of intuitionism, one should clearly, as M. Bunge repeatedly emphasizes, distinguish between the mathematical and philosophical aspects of this problem, although they are closely related. Mathematical intuitionism is not a philosophical movement. It is quite legitimate, within certain limits, to recognize in mathematics the concept of intuition as a direct, logically unfounded discretion of the mind. Criticizing Hilbert's formalism, Brouwer and Weyl, in the reduction of mathematical proofs, reach the intuitive foundation of complete induction, considering it as a kind of mathematical “primary intuition.” While remaining within the framework of mathematics, they have the right to do so. But when they begin to interpret intuition, separating it from the integral cognitive process and contrasting it with this process, they really, like intuitionists, turn intuition into the basis of absolutely reliable and unshakable knowledge. The subjective-idealistic interpretation of intuition connects this absolute reliability and inviolability of knowledge with the subject, leading to the assertion that there are as many mathematicians as there are mathematicians. The subjective-idealistic interpretation of intuition affects, of course, the understanding of mathematical problems proper, for example, as we have already seen, the problem of the existence of mathematical objects.

The modern constructive direction in mathematics, while continuing some ideas of intuitionism, at the same time does not accept its philosophical foundations. In particular, the attempt of intuitionists to consider the original “intuition” to be the only source of mathematics, and intuitive clarity to be the criterion of truth in mathematics. Representatives of the Soviet school of constructive direction emphasize the decisive importance of practice as a source of formation of mathematical constructions and methods of inference."

When considering the role of intuition in knowledge, M. Bunge proceeds from the understanding of scientific research as a complex dialectical process. “In any scientific work,” he writes, “from choosing and formulating a problem to testing a solution and from coming up with leading hypotheses to their deductive processing, we find sensory perception of things, phenomena and signs, figurative or visual representation of them, the formation of abstract concepts to varying degrees , comparison leading to analogy and inductive generalization side by side with wild guesswork, deduction - both formal and informal, close and detailed analysis, and probably many other ways of forming, combining and rejecting ideas” (p. 93). This understanding of the mechanism of scientific research allows the author to deeply consider the role of intuition in science and pose new problems for both the theory of knowledge and psychology.

The author's central thoughts about the role of intuition, about the subordination of intuition to logic and experiment correspond to the real course of scientific knowledge and are objectively directed against various idealistic interpretations of the role of intuition. “An intuitively formulated hypothesis,” he notes, “needs rational development, and after that, testing by ordinary methods... intuition may suggest significant links in the deductive chain, but does not eliminate the need for rigorous or at least the best possible proof. It may bias us in favor of one theory or method to the detriment of others, but suspicion is not proof” (p. 142).

The development of scientific theory is characterized by its increasing liberation from intuitive positions by reducing them to logically deducible statements or by discarding them as the results of errors. The intuitiveness of knowledge cannot act as a criterion for a scientific theory. Any scientific theory must satisfy certain logical, epistemological requirements. The main requirement is the possibility of its objective verification. Intuitive knowledge can be verified only when it is logically included in a holistic system of knowledge. In this case, we are not talking about provisions in a certain system of knowledge that are consciously accepted without evidence due to their repeated testing in experience, but about provisions whose place in a given system of knowledge is not logically understood. Such provisions are usually approximate and fragmentary in nature. Verification of such statements first requires their logical processing within the framework of a certain system of knowledge, as a result of which they can be accepted as initial principles or as deducible provisions. In all cases, their verification can be carried out only within the framework of a logically integral system of knowledge.

M. Bunge's view on the role of intuition in the process of creative imagination is determined, firstly, by a negative attitude towards reducing the process of obtaining new knowledge only to deductive inference or inductive generalizations. "One logic, he asserts, is not capable of leading anyone to new ideas, as one grammar itself cannot inspire anyone to create a poem, and the theory of harmony cannot inspire anyone to create a symphony” (p. 108). Secondly, his view of this role is determined by his recognition of the rational nature of the creative imagination. “In both science and technology, the new is generated by observation, comparison, verification, criticism and deduction.” “No scientific discovery or technical invention is possible without prior knowledge and subsequent logical processing” (pp. 109-110, 112). These important thoughts of M. Bunge about the role of intuition in the process of creative imagination are close to some fundamental aspects of the dialectical-materialist understanding of the role of intuition in scientific knowledge.

The basic provisions of materialist dialectics as logic and theory of knowledge are the initial prerequisites for a comprehensive development of the issue and the role of intuition in the creative imagination.

The process of scientific creativity, as P.V. Kopnin emphasizes, involves going beyond what directly logically follows from existing theoretical principles and experimental data." In other words, speaking in traditional philosophical language, it is not reduced to the analytical activity of the mind, but presupposes synthetic activity of the mind.

The synthetic activity of the mind, although it allows freedom of thinking from the shackles of strict logical deduction and the rules of inference by induction, nevertheless does not represent some kind of illogical process. Leaping over logic is simply going beyond the established rules of logical inference.

• 1 See: A. A. Markov, Constructive direction, “Philosophical Encyclopedia”. vol. 3, publishing house "Soviet Encyclopedia", M., 1964.
• 1 See P.V. Kopnin, Logic of scientific knowledge, “Questions of Philosophy”, No. 10, 1Y66.

In the process of synthetic, creative activity, a new concept, a new conceptual scheme is created, which makes it possible to take a fresh look at existing facts, carry out scientific foresight, put forward a new hypothesis, which leads to a radical change in the existing theory.

Such concepts include, for example, the concept of acceleration in Galileo-Newton mechanics, the concept of quantum in modern physics. All these concepts did not follow strictly logically from the previous data of physics, but were the result of the synthetic activity of thinking. Behind the synthetic activity of thinking there is a great deal of accumulated experience and previously acquired knowledge.

New experimental data indicate the inconsistency of old concepts, new information. At the same time, an inductive generalization that is simple according to already known rules does not directly lead to the emergence of a new concept. The creation of a new concept requires the mobilization of all previous knowledge and experience. A new concept appears as the result of a synthesis of old knowledge, expressed in a certain system of language and logic, and new experimental data.

The laws and categories of dialectics play a large role in the synthetic activity of thinking. The peculiarities of the laws and categories of dialectics, which consist in the fact that they are created on a broader basis than the concepts of any other science, give them an important heuristic, guiding role in the process of forming new knowledge. The laws and categories of dialectics, as it were, regulate and set the framework for the synthetic activity of thinking, leaving it within the framework of scientific and theoretical knowledge.

Intuition in the process of creative imagination is characterized by suddenness. It is united with other types of intuition by the element of spontaneity that it contains. It is characteristic of intuition in the process of creative imagination that in it the discursive cognition of data is not singled out as a special stage, but is carried out in the order of a specific generalization directly from the initial data to the result. Previous knowledge in the form of accumulated experience acts as a mediating link in this generalization. In the process of creative imagination, the mechanism of mediation is usually not initially realized and only the result is realized. Metaphysical separation in the creative imagination of the result from the process of obtaining can give rise to various kinds of idealistic, mystical teachings about intuition as a super-experienced, irrational comprehension of truth. The intuitive in the process of creative imagination does not oppose the logical: it simply flows in still unknown and unconscious logical forms. Therefore, it is necessary to realize and identify the logical mechanism of the process of achieving something new, carried out through creative imagination. Such identification will put new knowledge into a logical connection with known knowledge and eliminate defects in intuitive knowledge.

The problem of creative imagination and the role of intuition in it is a large and complex problem. M. Bunge's book examines only some aspects of this problem, although they are very significant.

The solution to this problem in relation to the modern level of development of science is associated with the further development of the most important provisions of the dialectical-materialist doctrine about the relationship between subject and object, formalized and informal knowledge, and the role of human creativity in the modern scientific and technological revolution. Its successful solution also depends on research in the field of so-called heuristic programming in cybernetics, on the discovery of the physiological mechanism of intuition. It depends on work on decision theory and search activity and on research that examines the possibilities of enhancing human creativity through the use of universal computing machines.

V. G. Vinogradov

Intuition and Science

The final product scientific research are scientific discoveries. Scientific discoveries are diverse in their content and nature. In the broadest sense of the word, a discovery is any new scientific result.

A scientific achievement is usually associated with the formation of fundamentally new concepts and ideas that are not a simple logical consequence of well-known scientific principles. How does a scientist come to fundamentally new concepts and ideas if they are not deducible from the existing scientific knowledge, “and sometimes even do not “fit” into it so much that they must seem catchphrase N. Bora, “crazy”?

When scientists try to talk about the process of their creativity, they rarely do without references to “guess,” “insight,” “insight,” “experience.” Intuition is what, in all likelihood, plays the most significant, decisive role in creating new scientific concepts and putting forward new ideas. “Here is what A. Einstein writes about this: “In essence, only intuition is of true value.” What is not called intuition! This is the highest, even supernatural gift, the only one capable of shedding the light of truth on the innermost secrets of existence, inaccessible to the wandering senses on the surface of things, nor by reason, constrained by the disciplinary rules of logic. This is an amazing power that easily and simply carries us across the abyss that unfolds between the condition of the problem and its solution. This is also the happy ability to instantly find an idea that is only in hindsight, in sweat and torment. will be justified by reasoning and experience. But at the same time, this is an unreliable, unsystematized path that can lead to a dead end, the fruitless hope of lazy people who do not want to exhaust their brains with charged mental efforts; a naive child of knowledge, whose incoherent babble is devoid of clear meaning and only after countless efforts. amendments may be considered as an information message"

To better understand what intuition is and its place in scientific knowledge, it is necessary to say a little about the background of this concept. “The development of natural science and mathematics in the 17th century brought forward a number of epistemological problems for science: about the transition from individual factors to general and necessary provisions of science, about the reliability of data from natural sciences and mathematics, about the nature of mathematical concepts and axioms, about an attempt to summarize the logical and epistemological explanation of mathematical knowledge, etc. The rapid development of mathematics and natural science required new methods in the theory of knowledge that would make it possible to determine the source of the necessity and universality of the laws derived by science. Interest in methods of scientific research increased not only in natural science but also in philosophical science, in which. rationalistic theories of intellectual intuition appear.

The main point of the rationalistic concept was the differentiation of knowledge into mediated and direct, that is, intuitive, which is a necessary moment in the process of scientific research. The founder of rationalism, Descartes, spoke of the existence of a special kind of truths, cognizable by “direct intellectual discretion” without the help of proof.

"For Kant, intuition is the source of knowledge. And “pure” intuition (“pure intuition of space and time”) is an inexhaustible source of knowledge: absolute certainty originates from it. This concept has its own history. Kant took it from Plotinus, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes and etc."

M.V. Lomonosov opposed rationalism. Knowledge, from Lomonosov’s point of view, is carried out as follows: “To establish a theory from observations, to correct observations through theory is The best way to finding the truth. Lomonosov came close to the problem of the relationship between direct and mediated knowledge as the results of sensory and theoretical knowledge and had a huge influence on the development of the problem of intuition in Russian philosophy.

Initially, intuition means, of course, perception: “This is what we see or perceive if we look at some object or examine it closely. However, starting at least from Plotinus, the opposition is developed between intuition, on the one hand, and discursive thinking - on the other. In accordance with this, intuition is a divine way of knowing something with just one glance, in an instant, outside of time, and discursive thinking is a human way of knowing, which consists in the fact that we are in the course of some reasoning that requires time, we develop our argument step by step."

As follows from the above, throughout the entire history of the development of ideas about intuition, there has been a contrast between perceptions, i.e., sensory images, and concepts, i.e., logically substantiated statements.

So there may be a place for intuition or its specific content should be sought in the area of ​​two cognitive processes: during the transition from sensory images to concepts and during the transition from concepts to sensory images. These two processes are qualitatively special ways of forming sensory images and concepts.

Their difference from all others lies in the fact that they are associated with the transition from the sphere of the sensory-visual to the sphere of the abstract-conceptual and vice versa. In the course of their development, concepts can be found that are not logically deducible from other concepts, and images that are not generated by other images according to the laws of sensory association.

The processes of transition from sensory images to concepts and, conversely, are indeed characterized by those qualities that are most often considered mandatory signs of intuition - the immediacy of the knowledge received and the not fully conscious nature of the mechanism of its occurrence.

Hans Selye describes mental activity somewhat differently and shows the position of intuition in it in his book “From Dream to Discovery”: “Logic forms the basis of experimental research, just as grammar forms the basis of language. However, we must learn to use mathematics and statistics intuitively, that is, unconsciously, since we do not have time to consciously apply the laws of logic at every step. Logic and mathematics can even block the free flow of that semi-intuitive thinking that is the basis of scientific research in the field of medicine.

That semi-intuitive logic that every experimental scientist uses in his daily work is a specific mixture of rigid formal logic and psychology. It is formal in the sense that it abstracts forms of thinking from their content in order to establish abstract criteria of consistency. And since these abstractions can be represented by symbols, logic can also be called symbolic (mathematics). But at the same time, this logic honestly and frankly admits that its conceptual elements, its abstractions, unlike mathematics or theoretical physics, are necessarily variable and relative. Consequently, strict laws of thinking cannot be applied to it. Thus, in thinking about the nature of thinking, we should also give an essential role to intuition. This is why psychology must be integrated with logic in our system of thinking.

Based on the mechanisms of thinking discussed above, we can say that intuition is a qualitative leap that occurs as a result of the fact that a certain quantitative volume of logical thinking preceding it moves to a qualitatively new level of intuitive insight. It’s just that new ideas don’t come out of nowhere; the birth of a new idea is preceded by a long period of mental work. Here it is also necessary to say that “a fundamental discovery cannot be made without the process of interaction of sensory and logical knowledge, carried out by the action of intuition. But this does not give any reason to consider it the main and, especially, the only way to obtain new scientific knowledge. Intuition is a specific form knowledge, which in a certain way influences the use of specific scientific research methods by a scientist. Fundamental theoretical discoveries are the result of the interaction of intuition with the methods and principles of a specific science (in physics, for example, with anology and hypothesis) and experimental verification of the data obtained."

Since the real acceleration of scientific and technological progress is associated with a qualitative increase in primarily fundamental, i.e., fundamentally new (and therefore not pre-programmed and not deducible only in a formal way), results. And here the question inevitably arises about the role of intuition in scientific knowledge. “If there is intuition, then there are patterns on which it is based.”

Generally speaking about intuitive abilities, the idea of ​​developed female intuition is interesting. One of the scientific journals writes: “In 1985, it was discovered that the corpus callosum - the isthmus connecting the two hemispheres of the brain in the human fetus - a girl - is wider than in a boy. Words are placed in one hemisphere of the brain, and feelings in the other. This means that women are capable tie them up much faster than men." The author of this article believes that practicing art and especially poetry increases this “isthmus”.

Knowledge gives us many secrets and one of them is intuition.