[ the main topic page ] [ the main page ]

Naira Danielyan - Associate Professor at
Moscow State Institute of Electronic Engineering (Technical University).

Consideration of the Modern Scientific Picture of the World
as the Unity of Objective and Subjective Characters

Neither influence of a subject onto an object nor the reality analysis in which the subject and the object function as objects were foreseen in the classic science. The classic science took subject-object approach as a basic one. Separation of a researcher from the object studied was something implied by itself in the 19^th century. There wasn’t any issue concerning an object transformation under the influence of an experiment and, therefore, being related with the distortion of the picture observed. The modern science has begun telling both about this distortion and the fact that a researcher and an investigated material (i.e. a subject and an object) belong to a wider category of events.

That’s why except the reality in which object and subject are separated, there’s another wider reality where both subject and object aren’t opposed to each other. Moreover, it’s possible to suggest the reality in which both subject and object become objects.

The scientific model of the reality is a result of interaction between a subject of scientific and cognitive activity and the reality. All the information which the subject of rational and cognitive activity can consider as a basis of the reality, e.g. cumulative empiric data, logic norms of a reasoning process, methodological rules and methods, existing theoretical schemes and models, is the necessary, but not enough material to take definite decisions while choosing a way of actions for the given problem situation. As a result, the subject itself is responsible for the choice from a number of alternatives, spectrums of abilities. Unlike the classic science which was directed to ascertaining some fact, the modern science is oriented an act of project and constructive thinking being opened for further critics. Hence, such kind of activity supposes freedom and creative work[1].

Modern methodological perception defines this inviolable thesis in two basic directions. First, these initial aims and presuppositions have not only a cognitive character. They define the whole motivation and semantic structure of subjects of scientific and cognitive activity. It includes factors of integral perception determined socially and culturally. It’s necessary to notice that theses about social and cultural determination of science and its value importance are stressed in the modern philosophy of science strenuously. But it’s obvious that influence of motivation and semantic factors of subjectivity on cognitive aims should be considered rather widely taking into account individual mental features, different personal preferences, etc. Second, understanding originality and specific positions of different subjects of scientific and cognitive activity according to aims of motivation and semantic spheres of the subjects’ perception, this activity should be introduced as a complex process of interaction among different positions, research programs, etc.[2]

The development of scientific reflection in the above directions inevitably leads to understanding the fact that the modern scientific picture of the world can be formed and perceived sufficiently only by means of the ‘open’ rationality while using abilities of rational and reflexive perception. The ‘open’ rationality supposes an ability to leave the limits of a fixed system of initial cognitive coordinates and the limits of hard constructions having a prescribed initial sense, some presuppositions and concepts. Thus, the ‘open’ rationality is aimed at the development of personal cognitive abilities, broadening someone’s horizons in his reality perception, constructing a scientific picture of the world as close to the reality as it’s possible. Consequently, the reality reflection in its originality can be realized only in the dynamics of collision and mutual enrichment of different ‘open’ cognitive positions, which are open to self-criticism and can risk by taking free responsibility at the same time. It’s obviously that such rationality supposes creation, freedom, the highest mobilization of all personal constructive mental efforts, which are realized, however, in the context of interpersonal work and the process of communication. Both this work and the communication are directed to some cognitive ideal of as wide, complete and deep understanding of the reality as it’s possible. They also require a constant ability to take a critic and reflexive position of an outer observer regarding own aims and convictions from the point of view of their correspondence to the reality in which a person is being included and inserted.

Thus, the modern type of scientific rationality broadens the reflexion field over activity. It takes into account the correspondence of the received knowledge about the object not only with features of activity means and operations, but also with value and special structures. The connection between internal scientific purposes and external social values and aims is being explicated.

Scientific perception is considered in the context of social terms of its existence and social consequences as a special part of the community existence, which is determined at every stage of its development by the general state of culture in the given historical epoch, its value orientations and world outlook positions. The historical changeability is comprehended not only from ontological postulates position, but according to epistemological ideals and norms. It is developed and enriched the content of such categories as ‘theory’, ‘method’, ‘fact’, ‘basis’, ‘explanation’, etc.

‘Categorical matrix’ begins to determine in the ontological constituent. It ensures understanding and perceiving some developing objects. It appears to be the new comprehension of space and time categories (taking the historical time of a system into account, the hierarchy of space and time forms), categories of possibility and reality (the idea of multiplicity of development lines which are possible potentially in bifurcation points), determination category (the previous history defines an electoral reaction of a system to some external influence), etc.

According to K.-O. Apel, subject of perception is being involved in cognitive practice now rather actively as a result of interaction with perception means and object on the basis of ‘significant thought’. This category requires a symbolic interaction which nature is revealed in the language in the best way[3]. There is such a statement in J. Habermas’s works. He considers ‘communicative action’. According to him, it helps to overcome a number of antinomies, which haven’t been overcome by previous concepts of rationality[4].

It’s possible to make a conclusion from the above material, that the process of construction of the modern scientific picture of the world causes a special situation of binding in the united system theoretical and experimental researches, applied and fundamental knowledge, intensification of feedforward and feedback among them. As a result it’s possible to observe the intensification of communication processes among principles and presentation of reality pictures, which are formed in different sciences. Thus, object is cognized as a result of organic sciences, which don’t have strict differentiating lines. The scientific picture of the world is received as fragments of the integral and general scientific picture of the world.

It’s possible to conclude from the above that such new orientations as non-linearity, irreversibility, non-equilibrium and others are used for the construction of the modern scientific picture of the world. They have been accepted with uncertainty as equitable elements of the conceptual analysis so far. The more extensive new scope of the concept ‘perception’ includes intuition, uncertainty, heuristics and other pragmatic characteristics, which were not traditional for the classic philosophy, e.g. good, effectiveness. The object sphere is expanded in the new scientific picture of the world due to including such systems in it as ‘artificial intellect’, ‘virtual reality’, ‘cyborg-relations’ which are the results of the scientific and technical progress. Such radical extension of the object sphere takes place in parallel with its radical ‘humanization’. And a person is included in the picture of the world not only as its active participant, but as its constituent principle. According to the correct notion by V.I. Samohvalova, “an individual must be not so the center of the world as an incentive to its growing perfection”[5].

It demonstrates that human thinking with its aims and value orientations brings such characteristics in itself, which join the subject content of object. That’s why the construction of the modern scientific picture of the world is possible only from the position of unity of objective and subjective characters. Social and cultural content also penetrates here. Subject and object categories form the system with elements dependent on each other and on the system in general. The ideal of spiritual unity of man and world having been proclaimed since antique times can be seen in this system.

---

Notes

[1] See: Shvyrev V.S. Rationality Fates in Modern Philosophy.// Subject, Perception, Activity. - М., 2002. - P.186-206.

[2] See: Ogurcov A.P. From Normative Reason to Communicative Rationality.// Ethos of Science./ Editors-in-Chief L.P. Kijashenko and E.Z. Mirskaja. М., 2008. - P.48-86.

[3] Apel K.-O. Types of rationality today: The continuum of reason between science and ethics.// Rationality today. - Ottawa, 1979. - P.307-340.

[4] Habermas J. Aspects of rationality of action.// Rationality today. - Ottawa, 1979. - P.185-204.

[5] Samohvalova V.I. Man and World Fate. - М., 2000. - P.31.