LOGIC OBJECT

Getting to the study of any academic discipline, it is very important to determine its subject as accurately as possible. And what is the subject? In the broad sense of the word, this is what you need to deal with. Therefore, to define the subject of logic is to explain what you need to deal with, being engaged in logic, and not in any other type of knowledge.

True, the subject of logic is not fenced off from other objects by the Chinese wall. Moreover, any subject can be studied in any discipline. But if for one discipline this subject is of primary interest, then for others it is of secondary, tertiary, etc.

Our task is to establish which subject is of primary interest to the specialist logic. Later, when familiarity with this specific subject has already taken place, it is possible to go beyond its scope to the sphere of primary interest of other disciplines related to logic, and this will mean an in-depth study of logical issues, but our course does not imply such a study of logic. We will confine ourselves to the basics, we will not climb into the jungle. But, having mastered this course, the student receives a reliable foundation for independent logical research, for improvement in this field of knowledge.

So, what is the subject of logic, which area or side of the world? In order to clarify this question, let us try to start with the etymology of the term "logic". The term is of ancient Greek origin, based on another Greek word - “logos”. The latter had many meanings, but the original and simplest was the meaning of the word. Thus, the term “logic” should literally be translated as “the study of words” or “the art of using words”.

Usually the term “logic” does not translate this way, since with this translation a clearly inaccurate definition of logic and its subject is obtained. It’s known that words are not primarily interested in logic, but in rhetoric that studies eloquence, or linguistics that studies languages. However, as we will see later, the literal translation of the term "logic" is no worse than another, ordinary translation, according to which logic is interested not in words, but in thinking. This usual translation is also not distinguished by severity, for the physiology of higher nervous activity and psychology are concerned with thinking no less than logic. To get to the exact definition of logic, let's talk about thinking.

It is extremely difficult to talk about thinking, because the category of thinking is one of the most fundamental categories of science in general. Although scientists have been studying thinking for a long time, many things remain unclear in this area. And, nevertheless, something reliable and important can be said. However, I would like to make a reservation that not all the facts I will mention are generally recognized.

To show the superiority of thinking over the more primitive types of reflection, we will say this: thinking is a proactive mental reflection of the world. Here, only one word has been added to the usual definition of thinking - the word "proactive", but this is a very important word.

Defining thinking, they say that it is a mental reflection of the world. The word “reflection” involuntarily evokes the image of a mirror and is thus confusing, because the reflection in the mirror is an optical reflection studied by physics, and any physical reflection, no matter how complex it is, is thousands of times more primitive than thinking. Moreover, mental reflection can be more primitive than thinking (if this is not taken into account, one can agree to the point that microbes also think).

What reflection should be called proactive? Answering this question, first I will give you this image: some object is reflected in the mirror, but this object itself is not opposite the mirror. It will appear, maybe, only in a moment, but so far it is not, and its reflection in the mirror is already there. Here is an artificial example of proactive reflection that helps you realize how tricky reflection is thinking.

Thinking always runs ahead - at least a little bit - compared to what is available. Consequently, both thinking as a whole and an individual thought are immaterial. Nevertheless, even in modern scientific literature one can often find opposite statements, i.e. statements about the materiality of thoughts and thinking in general.

The point here, to put it mildly, is in a misunderstanding. Often they confuse the material process underlying thinking and the thinking itself. What material process are we talking about? I mean the activity of the central nervous system, the work of brain neurons. Without brain, thinking is impossible, but the activity of brain cells is not thinking, and no matter how long you dig into the central nervous system, no matter how carefully you record the neuroelectric impulses that arise in it, you will not find any thinking and for the work of the brain is material, and thinking is immaterial.

Where can I meet thinking? Only in living organisms. The opinion that thinking is in inanimate nature is not confirmed by reliable facts. The more complicated question is this: which living organisms have thinking?

Often thinking is associated only with the human body. But nowadays a lot of facts have been accumulated, which speak in favor of the fact that animals can also think. Of course, not all, but only the highest - birds and mammals. More primitive creatures, such as reptiles, standing on the evolutionary ladder only a step below the birds, most likely, do not think. This is indicated by the behavior of animals.

Compare hunting crocodile and eagle. Crocodile awaits a potential victim and rushes at her when she is near. The eagle hunts very differently. He does not expect a potential victim (hare, etc.), but, having risen high in the sky, he is actively looking for her. Seeing, for example, a hare, he falls on him with a stone in order to smash his spinal column and prevent him from resisting. But the hare also has good eyesight, and he often notices the approach of an eagle very early. In addition, the hare can run fast and confuse the trail. However, the eagle's hunt is often successful. Why? If the eagle always fell where he had just noticed the hare, he would never catch him. So, the eagle must fall with anticipation: where the running hare may be.

This example shows what benefits thinking gives to an organism that thinks, compared to that which does not think. The thinking organism gains in orientation speed, and to quickly find its way in this situation is extremely important in the struggle for survival.

Recognizing the existence of thinking in the animal world, we must at the same time clearly distinguish between animal and human thinking. Animal thinking is instinctive, it arises on the basis of instincts for the maintenance of the interaction between them. Since the instinct is an extremely rigid, hereditarily fixed form of behavior, which involuntarily works in certain conditions without any significant changes, then, by serving the instincts, thinking turns out to be in a rigid framework. Any kind of animal has a ceiling in the development of thinking.

Another thing is man. His thinking broke out of the control of instincts in the area of ​​infinite development. How this happened, science has not yet clarified in detail. The appearance of a person, and with it non-instinctive thinking, capable of endless development, is a topic of a special and long conversation. We only note that the human body appeared as a result of the development of gun activity.

Together with a person, a consciousness appeared - the non-material world of a person, or the world of thinking. Having retired into their own, intangible world from under the power of instincts - purely material forms of behavior, thinking acquired the ability to take them under control and thereby win back to them. Strictly speaking, a person has no instincts, that is, hereditary data forms of behavior that are independent of his will. A person can control any form of his behavior using his consciousness.

Now let us leave the animals aside and focus on the consideration of human, conscious thinking. It is of two types - concrete and abstract.

Concrete thinking is thinking directly connected with material objective activity. Sometimes it is called the gun, more often - visual-shaped.

There are three main forms of concrete thinking:
1) sensation (the selection of the only, the most important at the moment properties of the object of material activity). Sensations are divided into types by types of sensitivity: tactile, olfactory, gustatory, auditory and visual. Sensation is so simple a thought that it seems as if it is not a thought, but a feeling;
2) perception (an image consisting of two or more sensations);
3) representation (stable perception, created by the active connection of memory). If sensations and perceptions are extremely changeable (they speak of a stream of sensations and perceptions), then the representation can persist for a long time in the field of consciousness. It happens like this: the current perception is delayed by the memory, and the following perceptions of the same subject rush into it. As a result, those properties of an object that change least of all, that is, essential properties, appear most clearly in the field of consciousness.

We examined the main forms of concrete thinking. Now summarize this material. Any thought within the framework of concrete thinking is a sensory image in the consciousness, that is, an image whose content is completely determined by the senses. Therefore, it is said that concrete thinking is peculiar to the sensual level of knowledge of the world.

Make your interest circle!

But abstract thinking has a completely different character. First, the definition: abstract thinking is thinking in isolation from material objective activity. He, like that of concrete thinking, has three basic forms: concept, judgment, and inference. Separately, we will look at them later, but for now we will define together, en masse. The form of abstract thinking is the idea of ​​the subject, its extremely generalized image.

Often, explaining the difference between concrete and abstract thinking, they say that concrete thinking does not generalize an object, takes it as a single thing, but abstract, instead, generalizes it, takes an object as an element of a set. This is a wrong explanation. Human thinking always generalizes, always deals with sets. Another thing is that concrete thinking simply generalizes (combines a finite number of single objects into an image), while abstract thinking summarizes extremely, that is, it creates an image of an infinite number.

In contrast to the forms of concrete thinking, the idea has no sensual character. Consider this question by example. An example of an idea is easy to cite using the word "in general". Let us take the idea of ​​man, that is, man in general. Such an image should contain the features of an infinite number of specific people (both those who lived before, those who live now, and those who will live later).

Can a person's idea be sensual? Of course not. Because this is an image of a child and an old man, and a woman and a man, and a healthy one, and a cripple, and white and black — all of an infinite number of people and no one in particular. Strictly speaking, an idea is not an image, since an image is created with the help of the senses, but an object corresponding to the idea eludes them. This object is known not sensually, but rationally. Therefore, it is said that abstract thinking is peculiar to the rational (rational) stage of knowledge of the world.

Born to crawl - can not fly.
Think too

This stage is sometimes called logical, and not without purpose: it is abstract thinking and no other is the subject of logic. In confirmation, I will give the old definition of logic coming from antiquity. According to this definition, logic is the knowledge of right thinking. What kind of thinking by itself, that is, by its own, internal laws, can be right or wrong? Only abstract thinking. The correctness of the animal or specific thinking is directly determined by external, material circumstances (body condition), therefore, if such thinking is wrong, it is not the fault, but the body, and therefore, to eliminate the error, it is necessary to influence not the thinking, but the body. Another thing - abstract thinking. It is mistaken because it deals with infinite sets, that is, the root of its errors is in its own, non-material nature. So, here to correct, it is the thinking that needs to be treated, not the body. This is what logic does.

Abstract thinking is impossible without the use of language, it is verbal (verbal). Why are language expressions convenient for designating ideas? Because they are abstract. Their content, unlike specific images, is not directly determined by the senses. It turns out that the ancient Greeks did not give a go at all, denoting knowledge of abstract thinking by the term "logic": studying such thinking, it is impossible not to learn words.