Techniques for comprehension

Strategies for Reading Comprehension :: Read Naturally, Inc.

Comprehension: The Goal of Reading

Comprehension, or extracting meaning from what you read, is the ultimate goal of reading. Experienced readers take this for granted and may not appreciate the reading comprehension skills required. The process of comprehension is both interactive and strategic. Rather than passively reading text, readers must analyze it, internalize it and make it their own.

In order to read with comprehension, developing readers must be able to read with some proficiency and then receive explicit instruction in reading comprehension strategies (Tierney, 1982).

​ Strategies for reading comprehension in Read Naturally programs

​General Strategies for Reading Comprehension

The process of comprehending text begins before children can read, when someone reads a picture book to them. They listen to the words, see the pictures in the book, and may start to associate the words on the page with the words they are hearing and the ideas they represent.

In order to learn comprehension strategies, students need modeling, practice, and feedback. The key comprehension strategies are described below.

Using Prior Knowledge/Previewing

When students preview text, they tap into what they already know that will help them to understand the text they are about to read. This provides a framework for any new information they read.

Predicting

When students make predictions about the text they are about to read, it sets up expectations based on their prior knowledge about similar topics. As they read, they may mentally revise their prediction as they gain more information.

Identifying the Main Idea and Summarization

Identifying the main idea and summarizing requires that students determine what is important and then put it in their own words. Implicit in this process is trying to understand the author’s purpose in writing the text.

Questioning

Asking and answering questions about text is another strategy that helps students focus on the meaning of text. Teachers can help by modeling both the process of asking good questions and strategies for finding the answers in the text.

Making Inferences

In order to make inferences about something that is not explicitly stated in the text, students must learn to draw on prior knowledge and recognize clues in the text itself.

Visualizing

Studies have shown that students who visualize while reading have better recall than those who do not (Pressley, 1977). Readers can take advantage of illustrations that are embedded in the text or create their own mental images or drawings when reading text without illustrations.

Strategies for Reading Comprehension: Narrative Text

Narrative text tells a story, either a true story or a fictional story. There are a number of strategies that will help students understand narrative text.

Story Maps

Teachers can have students diagram the story grammar of the text to raise their awareness of the elements the author uses to construct the story. Story grammar includes:

• Setting: When and where the story takes place (which can change over the course of the story).
• Characters: The people or animals in the story, including the protagonist (main character), whose motivations and actions drive the story.
• Plot: The story line, which typically includes one or more problems or conflicts that the protagonist must address and ultimately resolve.
• Theme: The overriding lesson or main idea that the author wants readers to glean from the story. It could be explicitly stated as in Aesop’s Fables or inferred by the reader (more common).

​ Printable story map (blank)

Retelling

Asking students to retell a story in their own words forces them to analyze the content to determine what is important. Teachers can encourage students to go beyond literally recounting the story to drawing their own conclusions about it.

Prediction

Teachers can ask readers to make a prediction about a story based on the title and any other clues that are available, such as illustrations. Teachers can later ask students to find text that supports or contradicts their predictions.

Answering Comprehension Questions

Asking students different types of questions requires that they find the answers in different ways, for example, by finding literal answers in the text itself or by drawing on prior knowledge and then inferring answers based on clues in the text.

Strategies for Reading Comprehension: Expository Text

Expository text explains facts and concepts in order to inform, persuade, or explain.

The Structure of Expository Text

Expository text is typically structured with visual cues such as headings and subheadings that provide clear cues as to the structure of the information. The first sentence in a paragraph is also typically a topic sentence that clearly states what the paragraph is about.

Expository text also often uses one of five common text structures as an organizing principle:

• Cause and effect
• Problem and solution
• Compare and contrast
• Description
• Time order (sequence of events, actions, or steps)

Teaching these structures can help students recognize relationships between ideas and the overall intent of the text.

Main Idea/Summarization

A summary briefly captures the main idea of the text and the key details that support the main idea. Students must understand the text in order to write a good summary that is more than a repetition of the text itself.

​K-W-L

There are three steps in the K-W-L process (Ogle, 1986):

1. What I Know: Before students read the text, ask them as a group to identify what they already know about the topic. Students write this list in the “K” column of their K-W-L forms.
2. What I Want to Know: Ask students to write questions about what they want to learn from reading the text in the “W” column of their K-W-L forms. For example, students may wonder if some of the “facts” offered in the “K” column are true.
3. What I Learned: As they read the text, students should look for answers to the questions listed in the “W” column and write their answers in the “L” column along with anything else they learn.

After all of the students have read the text, the teacher leads a discussion of the questions and answers.

 Printable K-W-L chart (blank)

Graphic Organizers

Graphic organizers provide visual representations of the concepts in expository text. Representing ideas and relationships graphically can help students understand and remember them. Examples of graphic organizers are:

Tree diagrams that represent categories and hierarchies

Tables that compare and contrast data

Time-driven diagrams that represent the order of events

Flowcharts that represent the steps of a process​

​

Teaching students how to develop and construct graphic organizers will require some modeling, guidance, and feedback. Teachers should demonstrate the process with examples first before students practice doing it on their own with teacher guidance and eventually work independently.

Strategies for Reading Comprehension in Read Naturally Programs

Several Read Naturally programs include strategies that support comprehension:

Bibliography

Honig, B. , L. Diamond, and L. Gutlohn. (2013). Teaching reading sourcebook, 2nd ed. Novato, CA: Arena Press.

Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher 38(6), pp. 564–570.

Pressley, M. (1977). Imagery and children’s learning: Putting the picture in developmental perspective. Review of Educational Research 47, pp. 586–622.

Tierney, R. J. (1982). Essential considerations for developing basic reading comprehension skills. School Psychology Review 11(3), pp. 299–305.

Seven Strategies to Teach Students Text Comprehension

1. Monitoring comprehension

Students who are good at monitoring their comprehension know when they understand what they read and when they do not. They have strategies to "fix" problems in their understanding as the problems arise. Research shows that instruction, even in the early grades, can help students become better at monitoring their comprehension.

Comprehension monitoring instruction teaches students to:

• Be aware of what they do understand
• Identify what they do not understand
• Use appropriate strategies to resolve problems in comprehension

2. Metacognition

Metacognition can be defined as "thinking about thinking." Good readers use metacognitive strategies to think about and have control over their reading. Before reading, they might clarify their purpose for reading and preview the text. During reading, they might monitor their understanding, adjusting their reading speed to fit the difficulty of the text and "fixing" any comprehension problems they have. After reading, they check their understanding of what they read.

Students may use several comprehension monitoring strategies:

• Identify where the difficulty occurs

  "I don't understand the second paragraph on page 76."

• Identify what the difficulty is

  "I don't get what the author means when she says, 'Arriving in America was a milestone in my grandmother's life. '"

• Restate the difficult sentence or passage in their own words

  "Oh, so the author means that coming to America was a very important event in her grandmother's life."

• Look back through the text

  "The author talked about Mr. McBride in Chapter 2, but I don't remember much about him. Maybe if I reread that chapter, I can figure out why he's acting this way now."

• Look forward in the text for information that might help them to resolve the difficulty

  "The text says, 'The groundwater may form a stream or pond or create a wetland. People can also bring groundwater to the surface.' Hmm, I don't understand how people can do that… Oh, the next section is called 'Wells.' I'll read this section to see if it tells how they do it."

3. Graphic and semantic organizers

Graphic organizers illustrate concepts and relationships between concepts in a text or using diagrams. Graphic organizers are known by different names, such as maps, webs, graphs, charts, frames, or clusters.

Regardless of the label, graphic organizers can help readers focus on concepts and how they are related to other concepts. Graphic organizers help students read and understand textbooks and picture books.

Graphic organizers can:

• Help students focus on text structure differences between fiction and nonfiction as they read
• Provide students with tools they can use to examine and show relationships in a text
• Help students write well-organized summaries of a text

Here are some examples of graphic organizers:

4. Answering questions

Questions can be effective because they:

• Give students a purpose for reading
• Focus students' attention on what they are to learn
• Help students to think actively as they read
• Encourage students to monitor their comprehension
• Help students to review content and relate what they have learned to what they already know

The Question-Answer Relationship strategy (QAR) encourages students to learn how to answer questions better. Students are asked to indicate whether the information they used to answer questions about the text was textually explicit information (information that was directly stated in the text), textually implicit information (information that was implied in the text), or information entirely from the student's own background knowledge.

There are four different types of questions:

• "Right There"

  Questions found right in the text that ask students to find the one right answer located in one place as a word or a sentence in the passage.

  Example: Who is Frog's friend? Answer: Toad

• "Think and Search"

  Questions based on the recall of facts that can be found directly in the text. Answers are typically found in more than one place, thus requiring students to "think" and "search" through the passage to find the answer.

  Example: Why was Frog sad? Answer: His friend was leaving.

• "Author and You"

  Questions require students to use what they already know, with what they have learned from reading the text. Students must understand the text and relate it to their prior knowledge before answering the question.

  Example: How do think Frog felt when he found Toad? Answer: I think that Frog felt happy because he had not seen Toad in a long time. I feel happy when I get to see my friend who lives far away.

• "On Your Own"

  Questions are answered based on a student's prior knowledge and experiences. Reading the text may not be helpful to them when answering this type of question.

  Example: How would you feel if your best friend moved away? Answer: I would feel very sad if my best friend moved away because I would miss her.

5. Generating questions

By generating questions, students become aware of whether they can answer the questions and if they understand what they are reading. Students learn to ask themselves questions that require them to combine information from different segments of text. For example, students can be taught to ask main idea questions that relate to important information in a text.

6. Recognizing story structure

In story structure instruction, students learn to identify the categories of content (characters, setting, events, problem, resolution). Often, students learn to recognize story structure through the use of story maps. Instruction in story structure improves students' comprehension.

7. Summarizing

Summarizing requires students to determine what is important in what they are reading and to put it into their own words. Instruction in summarizing helps students:

• Identify or generate main ideas
• Connect the main or central ideas
• Eliminate unnecessary information
• Remember what they read

Effective comprehension strategy instruction is explicit

Research shows that explicit teaching techniques are particularly effective for comprehension strategy instruction. In explicit instruction, teachers tell readers why and when they should use strategies, what strategies to use, and how to apply them. The steps of explicit instruction typically include direct explanation, teacher modeling ("thinking aloud"), guided practice, and application.

• Direct explanation

  The teacher explains to students why the strategy helps comprehension and when to apply the strategy.

• Modeling

  The teacher models, or demonstrates, how to apply the strategy, usually by "thinking aloud" while reading the text that the students are using.

• Guided practice

  The teacher guides and assists students as they learn how and when to apply the strategy.

• Application

  The teacher helps students practice the strategy until they can apply it independently.

Effective comprehension strategy instruction can be accomplished through cooperative learning, which involves students working together as partners or in small groups on clearly defined tasks. Cooperative learning instruction has been used successfully to teach comprehension strategies. Students work together to understand texts, helping each other learn and apply comprehension strategies. Teachers help students learn to work in groups. Teachers also provide modeling of the comprehension strategies.

Technique of understanding. The need for yourself. Introduction to Philosophy

Technique of Understanding

Before that, I tried to explain the technical language of philosophy by projecting it onto real problems known to us. I told you that the biggest difficulty in dealing with philosophy is the difficulty of recognition. There is something, but we don't know what it is. Simply because we do not know how to correlate the language of this “something” with what we know regardless of the language.

On the one hand, philosophy seems to be a simple thing: it is connected with all the problems that we know and experience independently of philosophy. But, on the other hand, when we read a philosophical text. We often lack recognition in him of the way he uses to talk about things that we know about at all, because we are human beings. And, of course, the task of any account of philosophy must therefore be the task of constantly relating philosophy (and explaining it along the way) with what we know, once experienced, or tried to understand without resorting to its language. Such recognition can sometimes bring true joy, especially when dealing with the texts of Kant, Descartes, etc.

I tried to illustrate some topics. connected with the fact that we have consciousness. For example, there is the consciousness of the world. here arises the problem of a philosophical mystery, which, as I said, is not solved once and for all, and our activity of thinking is repeated every time anew in its terms and concepts. No matter how complex and branched philosophy. she still retains life wisdom. But it is very difficult to be wise - not in the psychological sense of the word (philosophy does not deal with the psychological abilities of a person), but in the sense that wisdom, intelligence and even stupidity in philosophy do not mean what we usually understand by wisdom, intelligence, etc. Although philosophy speaks the same language that we generally speak, we have one language. There is no other. Therefore, we are inclined, among other things, to understand wisdom according to the psychological world of language (language is at the same time the world of psychology) and we think that this word simply means a quality that is characteristic or not characteristic of this or that person. However, for a philosopher, words that look similar in appearance to the designation of human or psychological qualities do not mean these qualities. Wisdom in philosophy means a kind of art necessary for doing and existing quite certain things. Not the presence of certain qualities or properties, but art that has its own apparatus. Not a property that a person may or may not have, but his skill. The Greeks already paid well for this, and, in fact, they began with this, discovering something that underlies all philosophy. Namely, it turns out that human intentions (for example, the desire for goodness, the desire to be honest) are not enough. In other words, empirical. ordinary states of man are not self-sufficient.

By the way, real writers are well aware of this, that novels are not created with good intentions. What does it mean to write, say, a good book that would have a moral effect? It turns out that this is not enough to be moral. I think you understand that a novel, like a work of art, for example, is a construction, an art. And its effects will be those of a well-done design, not the author's intentions. If the author wrote badly, then he wrote immorally. That is, the work lives its own life, and, being a bad design, will generate an immoral effect. The Greeks, I repeat, understood perfectly well that nothing is built out of intentions. What are intentions? - These are our qualities, states. You can be smart in biological terms (think quickly, count, etc.), but this is not the mind in the philosophical sense. To think accurately, there must be appropriate "muscles". Because stupidity and evil are not the consequences of our psychology, but the consequences of the fact that we do not think accurately. In this sense, stupidity is that. what is thought in our head by itself. not by us. How. for example, the ideology of which we are the bearers, it lives in us by itself, and to the extent that we express it, we are idiots. Although at the same time in a biological sense, according to psychological criteria, we can be gifted people. In the technique of religious consciousness, this was very clearly expressed in the image of the devil, who plays with us regardless of our intentions.

So. — lack of self-sufficiency of human states. The need for a person to have something that can be self-sufficient. Remember, I was talking about Descartes' innate ideas that are not deducible from empirical experience. They are in us and at the same time cannot be brought in by our own virtue. We are not born wise. It is something greater in us than ourselves. Therefore, the task of philosophy is to maximize the release of the life of something greater than ourselves. Understanding this is the essence. core of philosophy. First, an understanding of the non-self-sufficiency of our natural abilities, qualities and properties, or of what we are by nature. And, secondly. understanding that the most valuable thing in us is something greater than ourselves. And we need art, some kind of technique or "extension" that works to maximize the release of the field or clean space in which this would manifest itself. That is, a kind of negative, negative technique - I don’t do it out of habit, but I have to do everything anew, and then something will appear. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the language of philosophy contains words that do not have an objective, literal meaning. Such a symbol is, for example, the soul in that measure. in what it is in me, but does not depend on me. As something independent and immortal.

The philosopher does not say that there is such an object. He simply introduces a symbol, assuming that if you relate to the soul as a symbol, you will free up space for it to live in you. She is in you. but not your inner dignity. So that it does not get overgrown with, say, mold or something else (I don’t know what souls overgrow with), some kind of technique is needed. Technique contains an apparent statement about the soul. But in reality there are no statements (it is not said that there is a soul). Buddhist philosophy, for example, believes that the individual soul does not exist at all, it is not characteristic of a person: the “I” is considered in it as an illusion, albeit a stable one. On the contrary, it introduces the concept of some one world and one soul, the projections of which are illusory or multiple "I". There is no multiple consciousness. As the mystics have said - and I repeat this formula with pleasure - consciousness is a singulare tantimi, that is, the multiple-single. Multiple singularity, shall we say.

Now, having taken an element of philosophical language, I can immediately reverse it. On the one hand, I tried to show you that what has just been said is related to simple things. On the other hand, it immediately gives rise to professional technical issues. Let us therefore turn to the history of philosophy; I think I have already given this example, it is connected with the philosophy of Berkeley. In the sense - is it possible to perceive the world as it is, regardless of perception? This is an example of the philosophical "scholasticism" that we meet in the text, but do not know what led to it. So let's do a reverse move to get there. which prompted this question. To do this, we must return to our psychological language, since at the same time we are “born” in that. that is greater than ourselves. And this is clearly not nature. but something we talk about in symbolic language. Although being born, we continue to be natural beings (more precisely, we do not cease to be them). But our birth is somehow strange. Living, we speak the language of certain signs and sounds, behind which stands our material material psychology, our properties and qualities. Life goes on, and we are, as it were, in a gap, in some gap between nature and the artificial world, artificial formations. And in the middle lives something greater than ourselves. which we need only worry about. But we, I repeat, remain natural beings, which inevitably gives rise to systematic appearances and illusions, paradoxes in the sense of meaningless questions that just require philosophical clarification.

So I said that consciousness is one, and showed what questions lead to philosophical idealism like Berkeley. Let us start again from the question: how is the world given to our perception? When we talk about the world and perception, the assumption involuntarily arises in language that we can have a world independent of perception and compare it with perception. After all, we are still within the natural appearance of language. And it is the language that contains the assertion that if there is something - for example, a tree - then it, in itself, is the "tree" in my head. But the very possibility that I am talking about this contains the premise that, in principle, somehow I can know about the tree independently of my perception and compare it with this perception. But if I generally know about a tree only from my perception, then how else can I know about it? What - by again comparing the tree with its image and deriving, for example (if I am a materialist) the image of the tree from its impact on my consciousness? But after all, I know about the tree that affects my consciousness only from the totality of perception. That is, I do not have any point from which I could look at the tree with one eye, with the second eye at the perception of the tree, and with the third eye still evaluate their correspondence, adequacy. There is such a philosophical term - "adequacy", adequacy. For example, they say: the idea must be adequate to the subject. To do this, you need to grasp the object separately from the idea in order to compare it with it. Descartes called this the situation of the "third eye" - there are objects, there are their images in us, and there is another eye that sees objects and compares them with images (although this third eye can draw the content of its vision only from what it was told images). And the object (tree, in our case) can never be given to us in any other way. It is possible to construct this kind of paradoxical reasoning, as Heraclitus once did. Philosophical language is always conditional and rigidly constructed in order to hammer at least one thought or one shade of thought into our heads. But let's continue our insidious questions. in sense

- how many trees? Here, for example, we have a lamppost

- however, you can’t see it, but I can see it through the window. He is in my mind, in your mind; but how does he send one image to my head, one image to yours, a third, a fourth, etc. What does he multiply? But then is it the same lamppost or not? This means that there is a plurality of consciousness: somehow the lamppost manages to be in different places, while itself remaining in place. And besides, it still poses a problem for us: how can I survive your lamppost, and how can you survive mine?

Can you test my mind? After all, if there are many lampposts, then the problem of communication arises, which in this case is the problem of our penetration into each other's consciousness. Otherwise (a lamppost as a possible concept does not exist, because when we communicate, we connect the images again. After all, they just turned out in the plural, and we must somehow combine them so that in our language there is one designation, there is one and the same lamppost. But a word is just a word, a sound. A pillar does not carry a "pillar" in itself. And the sound "pillar" is not like, say, the sound "table". So, I do not convey to you the pillar in the material form of the word , by the very speaking: s-t-o-l-b. Otherwise it happens. The transmission happens in such a way that when I say "pillar", this word in your head corresponds to the image of the pillar. However, you have one, and I have - another. The pillar multiplied. And what? To understand this word, I need to get into your consciousness and experience it as my consciousness? Is it possible? Is it possible to really experience someone else's consciousness? do they exist?0003

In fact, I have now briefly, literally in a few minutes, conveyed to you the content of thousands of philosophical treatises. This is the famous problem of intersubjectivity that modern phenomenologists are concerned with. Why is it important for us to understand this problem and why is such a philosophy needed at all? Then, by starting to speak or starting to move in a certain way, we got into a situation, and the process of clarifying it is simply inevitable. Moreover, by saying “pillar”, people managed to come up with words that do not say anything about real pillars. Let's say, in the Georgian language they will be different, in the Armenian language there will be some more, incomprehensible to us, etc. What should they correlate with? With the psychological composition of our consciousness? But then, in order for words to make sense, there must be an opportunity to exchange not words, but the psychological content of consciousness. Can we exchange this?

What I'm talking about are problems that have grown out of the everyday situation and find their formulation already in philosophical language (although I have not used philosophical language just now). And first of all, of course, this is the problem of the so-called philosophical intersubjectivity. The problem of the possibility of penetrating into someone else's consciousness, which, of course, should be discussed because some kind of toolkit, technique, a set of some concepts, a conceptual apparatus should be developed; all this is philosophy. That is, the main meaning of such a discussion is that a philosophical doctrine is possible, within the framework of which questions are posed (as I have just raised), arising from the situation in which we have plunged ourselves into. When, continuing to be natural beings, we speak within the natural illusion of language. And in it there is your “I”, your “I”, there is a lamppost that has suddenly multiplied and is present in many places. Consequently, what I am now saying (not the content, but what I am saying about it) is already a philosophy of a certain kind, since the problem of how to convey something to another consciousness begins to be solved. And a philosophy is possible that argues (as I argue about it) how the situation arises of the need to talk about the transfer of consciousness to each other, and shows that this is a pseudo-problem. After all, if I can show that this arises only due to the naturalism of language, then I thereby not only show that this is a pseudo-problem, but also build one of the versions of philosophy, in terms of which I could show that there is no such problem.

For the real problem is that the multiplicity is added to that which is one. There are not many trees. This table is one; not he - in us, when we are aware, we see the image, but we are there, there is no problem of its reproduction. The world is one (it is given once). But the language we speak is faced with the task of communication, not the task of analysis, because language inspires us with certain inclinations, contains within itself certain natural appearances, and raises certain questions about which the philosopher can show. that they are inevitable - since we started like that. And, of course, we will have a problem of how to communicate another consciousness. But it turns out that consciousness does not need to communicate. It is one. And you are not and I am not. There are no multiple "I". There is one thing, and there is the illusion of "I" that arises due to certain reasons. Now I am presenting (naturally, in my own language) a mixture of different Eastern philosophies, but I think it is clear what makes all these words live, and where and in what the named problems draw their life, including the problem of the possibility of penetrating into another consciousness. Because if there were different consciousnesses, then perhaps it would be impossible to remember. Therefore, concepts are developed for the analysis of the life of consciousness.

Feeling for these points, the nerves, thanks to which the corresponding concepts appear, let's go, however, a little from the other side; I will use this to introduce other problems. Also in a theoretical, if you like, form, but I first need to get to them, going simply from wisdom, let's say so.

I said that philosophy, or wisdom, is thinking about what we could not achieve on our own, for which art is needed. It is not enough to think in the biological sense of the word, something else is needed. It is not enough to want goodness: goodness is an art, that is, a technique is complex. It is not enough to want the truth: truth is a technique. Science and philosophy exist because truth is technology. And she lives her life, according to her own laws. And the problem of humanity is the problem of the fact that there is or may be (or may not be, if we are not lucky) in us something greater than ourselves. What grows in the form of hygiene, the rules of mental life, the rules of cultural life. That is, everything for which people invented entire institutions - law, morality, philosophy, art, etc. ... Something, as it were, created by man, because all this, although it was created, refers to something that from man does not depend on what is greater in man than himself. Then this problem can apparently be discussed in such a way, since it already happened once and was discussed in ancient philosophy, then it was repeated in the philosophy of modern times and today it is repeated in philosophy, and in ethnology and in other disciplines. Namely, one can introduce the concepts of artificial and natural. And discuss it at the level of the concepts of "nature culture". What is the relationship between culture and nature? I will call culture everything that is artificial, that is not born by nature, when it is possible to discuss such a question: is everything artificial in culture? Or in other words: is everything in it a conscious invention of man, controlled, or is there something else, although not natural, but at the same time completely independent of man? Of course, I can say that to some extent man is a product of nature. In what sense? Is it really a product of nature? Or maybe it's not natural at all.

By the way, asking such questions, people then cease to understand that they have thereby invented a certain technique that must be mastered, as one masters, say, muscles - a technique not of describing some contents, but of thinking about what is more in a person. than himself. So what kind of work is this - the invention of some artificial things that are not valuable in themselves and at the same time are such a technique?

For example, the primary technique of this kind was at one time world religions. Religious consciousness has its own technique; this is precisely the apophatic technique, as a philosopher would put it, negative, when it is said about God that He does not exist. That is, what I call so does not exist. This means that only negative definitions can be given to God. This is a very old thing, the so-called apophatic theology; then philosophers began to call it negative, or negative metaphysics (one of its most prominent representatives was Kant). This is a technique for skillfully resolving problems, connections and impossibilities that arise in a situation where there is something more in me than myself, and, therefore, not invented by me, and at the same time not born in me by nature. Because by nature my abilities or incapacities are born in me, my stupidity in the ideological sense of the word, or some glimpses of the mind. It may or may not be, but it is natural. And that which is beyond nature—should I attribute it to myself? It turns out that it is useful to consider that this, for example, is a gift. And I'm just a guardian of the gift - good or bad. But what is it?

So I said: "watchman", "gift"... - do these words describe anything, do they have an empirical scientific meaning? - Of course not. They serve to ensure that I live wisely and think wisely. This is a warning, not b%.`(o of the world: You will commit a great sin (a mystic would say about this) if one day you think that what you did you did out of self-worth (I quote Simeon)

This is an example of a theological statement. But in theology, quite serious, deep symbols were also invented: for example, the symbol of Christ as God incarnate. And you know that this symbol solved fantastic problems. If we call problems the chains that arise in this mess : more than you asm, but at the same time not natural. So, how to live with it? How to deal with it? I think I was talking to you about such an invention as the wheel. still remains the limit of our possibilities in the sense of movement, beyond which we have not gone, although we discovered atomic energy. But in fact, the same inventions exist in the field of spiritual thought. I mean in this case, first of all, the image of Christ. However, to When I say: “something more in us than ourselves” and “this is more valuable than ourselves”, then you may be, firstly, tempted to attribute this to yourself, that this is supposedly your dignity, which distinguishes you from others. And secondly, there is a temptation to imitate God, because if there is no nature, then this is the divine principle. So right? And it, in turn, is simply an allegory of our and natural beginning. And therefore... one can imitate God. And in fact, here a symbol arises, according to which one should strive to imitate Christ, and not God. That is, the introduction of the concept of the embodied God in the world religion (in Buddhism - Buddha in the plural) is an element of solving the "machine" of mental clutches and technology. Is it clear what I said? For otherwise we fall into blasphemy; and here is the incarnate God, he can still be “imitated”. This means that the incarnate God serves for this, and not for telling the tale that there is an immaculate conception that depends on chance. As the French say, it is not in such cases that women are in danger.

What I am telling you about is one of the examples of the technique of life, the hygiene of spiritual life. But philosophy is not just hygiene, especially since it is built by developing intellectual structures, the connection of which with the original base is not always noticeable. I emphasize that a very significant place in the life of cultures is occupied by such mental spiritual constructions, the content and task of which is not to describe what the world is like. This is a very important point. And for a literate consciousness, which needs to be taught and cultivated within the framework of a certain tradition, all this is usually clear. But sometimes the tradition is interrupted, we lose the meaning and stop understanding what it means. Say, in connection with flights into space, many of us think (including those who fly and those who watch those who fly) that there, being in space, we will finally see the absence of something, namely - divine being.

Such is the work of an illiterate consciousness, which does not understand the meaning of what has been affirmed by tradition; although I must say that people who live within a tradition are also not always distinguished by understanding. But since the tradition has a system of prohibitions, then. by following them, we sometimes avoid the possible consequences of our misunderstanding. By virtue of simple obedience, by virtue of humility: if you don’t know, if you don’t understand, then obey. At least try to figure it out.

But let's move on to something completely different. I spoke using the expressions "more than knowledge", "not natural, but not artificial", in the sense that it lives its own life. Remember, in a sense, the wheel lives its own life - the wheel as an idea, as a reproducing form, as a horizon of our possibilities. The canon of the "golden section" lives its own life. Arched vault - as a form, or an artifact, an artificial invention. True, we cannot pierce the thickness of the myth - not individual, but collective, and name the dates and names of their inventors. The thousand-year-old thickness of basic human inventions, such as the ogival vault, the wheel, etc., is impenetrable. But today we can talk about it using these terms as well. I gave examples of how the theory of consciousness works in philosophy, how the concept of pure consciousness arose (highlighting in mosaic and arbitrarily).

All this was the development of a certain apparatus in order to be able to reason about the problems that I told you about in another connection. These problems are: what is the world like? what can be said about it? That is, we need to find such a point of assertion about the world, which, in its content, would not depend on the chance of the assertion itself. Because we are finite beings, and in our statements we claim to formulate universal judgments about the cosmos. But how can a being observing the cosmos from a random point in general judge how the cosmos works? After all, the structure of the cosmos does not have to take into account our accidents, the accidents of the fact that, say, the resolution of our vision in relation to the light field and the light spectrum is one, while other (animals) have another, or the resolution of our hearing is such and such.

Consequently, the world is something happening, and something is happening in it, regardless of the limitations of our dimension, our structure. And yet in physics we talk about it. In physics, we have learned to talk about the world in such a way that this something is not limited by our own limitations.

Hence, as the subject of such statements about the world, we still posit some special, by no means empirical being. For example, "pure me". Where does this thing come from? From the concepts of classical German philosophy, where "I" appears as a "pure self"? But where does it come from? Why is it necessary to talk about some kind of pure consciousness? Could it be that “pure consciousness,” as I told you, is just a general term, a so-called general term? Like "tree" meaning many trees, or "table". No, this is not an abstraction of consciousness from a multitude of consciousnesses, but the final point of the necessary path of reasoning. when all these questions are asked at once. In order to say something universal and necessary about the world, something must happen in me (or in you). There must be an act of understanding. It may or may not exist, but it does not follow from the contents of the world: a certain “accident” is the condition for affirmation in the world of contents. When something happens, whether you understand it or not, I understand or I don't understand. Need to be! That is, being does not depend on thought. Your being is from my and your own thought or thinking.

This topic, about which in this form. in my presentation, you have hardly heard, but you can meet it in a professional text, where it is said that there is an identity of being and thinking. For example, Kant once had to prove that being is not a predicate, it is not implied in such a way that it can be obtained in a logical way. As I have just explained, what should be cannot be deduced, it is a primordial-original act. Everything is in it. If I could convey knowledge and understanding to you, then knowledge and understanding would be only an element in the chain of reasoning, inference, or causation. But if I prove that this cannot be, then I thereby affirm that, on the one hand, there is thought and the transfer of knowledge, and on the other hand, there is still being, without which there is no thought in the sense of understanding. It should flash - in your head.

So what situation am I in? I found myself in the situation that I described last time, and now I will express it a little differently: first there is a result, the world does not depend on our device. That. what we say about the world has the form of physical laws that I affirm in the world. They must not depend on the randomness of my own ideal arrangement. Nevertheless, understanding depends on the existence of at least one conscious being, because the existence of consciousness and understanding is precisely the existence of consciousness and understanding, and not simply the existence of a thing. Yep, yes. Consequently, I am already dealing here with some strange being, as Parmenides would say; it is now that which is recognized by thought as such. This is the first historical formulation of the famous identity of being and thinking in philosophy.

But let's put the question a little differently. Here we have already introduced pure consciousness and proved that we have introduced a famous figure, a construction for which it is convenient to talk about these problems - the “pure self”, considered as a non-empirical subject. That is, they introduced not you, not me, not an empirical carrier of some mental or physiological states, but some “I”, which is spoken of, as if it were a usual self. And hence the reader becomes embarrassed: reading Kant or Hegel. he tries to correlate what they say about the "I" with the "I" in our language. And he may be perplexed: what then is it? And it talks about some non-empirical subject. Why is it necessary to talk about him? Yes, because it is inevitable. After all, if I'm talking about the understanding of the world, and this understanding is formulated in the universal physical laws. which cannot depend on the randomness and dimension of the human senses, although at the same time there must be some kind of being, then I solve the problem anyway by introducing some kind of being, but not an empirical one, but a “pure self”. And in the history of philosophy, a whole episode is played out on this occasion on the basis of invented concepts of consciousness, or rather, in terms of the reflexive construction of self-consciousness introduced by Descartes, Kant and further developed by Fichte, Schelling, Hegel (in general, before Marx, including Hegel).

But another step is also possible, which was also productive in the history of philosophy, that is, for the development of the apparatus of philosophy as such. This step can be taken by thinking about what I said about "more than myself", in me, and not in nature. In the language of the classical theory of consciousness, this can be said in such terms: “innate ideas” (Descartes), “pure self” (Kant). But the final point of this theory was the following statement. Kant, as a classical philosopher of the classical era, always frankly expressed what the logic of the philosophical machine leads to. He said that there are phenomena, certain things, that can only be spoken of in terms of supernatural inner workings. Pay attention to the combination of words: supernatural inner influence. By the way, this is the voice of the categorical imperative within us. Remember the two spectacles that cause delight - the starry sky on us and the categorical imperative in us? Surprised delight - it is great, but at the same time it is not very clear where this miracle comes from. A miracle - but a clear one (there is a clear miracle). The view of the starry sky is a clear miracle of harmony, but not completely understood. Because everything that causes delight is incomprehensible. The word "delight" after all means that what we perceive and understand, we see clearly, but not completely. Not in the sense that there is some incomprehensible detail. No. A miracle - I see clearly, but ... how can this be ?!

Now, pay attention, it turns out that everything I just said can be said in other terms. What is conscience? Conscience is something that is within us, greater than ourselves, and does not depend on us. When we say: the voice of conscience, we clearly mean something that does not depend on us and, as it were, commands us. But this is not the voice of nature. Thank you, dear Kant, well said: supernatural inner influence. Does the supernatural exist? For experiential knowledge, of course, does not exist. But conscience is not experiential knowledge. And therefore its existence can be considered as the existence of the supernatural. So Kant said it all right. Although we usually think that it is outside of us. For example, the supernatural world; we are here, and he is somewhere there. Not at all.

A supernatural inner influence is not some kind of external necessity separated from us, on which one could orient oneself or to which one could obey. By the way, one of the Russian existentialists understood classical philosophy in this way (incorrectly). I mean Lev Shestov, who had the idea of ​​fixing Spinoza, who allegedly bound the whole world with the chains of necessity. Spinoza famously said that a free man does not think about death. But Shestov objected to this: and what kind of freedom is this, which is guided by laws! If you remember, I constantly remind you that the history of philosophy and philosophy itself is rich in misunderstandings. It is really strange why philosophers do not understand each other well. I never cease to be amazed at this (although not the same as the starry sky). Deafness! Shestov is certainly a gifted philosopher. but he is a philosopher of the monoidea. He saw in the philosopher (including Spinoza) only systems) of natural natural necessities and laws.

And Kant says: the supernatural is not an external imperative, not a norm formulated outside of me, to which I obey as an external necessity and law, but a voice within me. And at the same time, this is not the voice of my empirical "I", but a supernatural inner influence. It is a force that I obey, that leads me, that I follow, but it is supernatural. First, it is not some kind of natural law (natural laws are not formulated in terms of conscience). And, secondly, conscience is not my property, but it is not nature. Supernatural in this sense of the word. Or supernatural inner influence. And so you can say.

Technology

Technique R.K. What is technique?I. C. The whole person. We learn to apply it, but we cannot acquire it beforehand, or perhaps I should say that we are born with the ability to acquire technique. At present, it has come to mean something opposite to "soul", although

Series technology

Serial technology R. /G. Do you think of the intervals in your series as tonal intervals, that is, do you always have tonal attraction in your intervals? I. C. Intervals in my series gravitate toward tonality; I compose vertically and that means at least one

Technique of Understanding

Technique of Understanding Before that, I tried to explain the technical language of philosophy by projecting it onto real problems known to us. I told you that the biggest difficulty in dealing with philosophy is the difficulty of recognition. There is something, but we don't know what it is. Just

UNCONSCIOUS TECHNIQUE AND SYSTEM

TECHNIQUE AND SYSTEM OF THE UNCONSCIOUS However, one should think about whether this relative stagnation of forms and technical means was not initially due (and later, in the chapter "Models and Series", we will see that such a systematic shortage is extremely effective in

IX.

IX. Primitivism and technology I must remind you that we are busy analyzing an era - our era, which, by its very essence, is ambiguous. That is why I said at the outset that all the features of our time—in particular, the uprising of the masses—appear before us in two aspects. Every feature

Philosophy and technology

Philosophy and technology 1. With any approach to philosophical thought, such a strange thing, whether it sounds in living speech or petrified in writing, our most diligent - because it goes against us - concern, the most difficult, dealing with the greatest danger

What is technology?

What is technique? Technology in the twentieth century becomes the subject of study of various disciplines, both technical, natural and public, both general and private. The number of special technical disciplines is increasing in our time with amazing speed,

Technique in historical retrospective

Technique in historical retrospective No matter from what moment the beginning of science is counted, it can be definitely said about technology that it arose along with the emergence of Homo sapiens and for a long time developed independently of any science. This, of course, does not mean that

12.3. Types and technique of surveys

12.3. Types and technique of surveys 1. An interview is a conversation conducted according to a specific plan, involving direct contact between the interviewer and the respondent (respondent).0003

IX. Wild and tech

IX. Wildness and technology It is extremely important to remember that the state of affairs in the modern world is itself ambiguous. That is why I initially suggested that any phenomenon of modernity - and especially the uprising of the masses - is like a watershed. Each of them not only can, but must

Chapter 1 PROCESS TECHNOLOGY

Chapter 1 PROCESS TECHNOLOGY All the processes described in this book do not constitute "the path to complete freedom." Think carefully - do you need it, this complete freedom? Complete and ultimate freedom is easily achievable - just put a bullet in your head and never play

Science and technology

Science and technology The schism of the Catholic Church was of great importance for securing the dominant position in culture for science. Protestantism stimulated a dispute over which of the contending religious factions was worthy of supreme power. Meanwhile, intensively developed

Science and technology

Science and technology Rationality does not remain a constant value in culture, but gradually increases. Based on the type of rationality, Greek and Roman culture can be called philosophical, and European - scientific. Like Aristotle, having left Athens from the danger of judgment, he could no longer

Technique

Technique A set of tools (tools, machines, computer programs, etc.) and skills that allows you to achieve certain results. The word "technique" comes from the ancient Greek tekhne, which in Latin corresponds to the word ars. In modern

Technique of Understanding

The biggest difficulty in dealing with philosophy - the difficulty of recognition. A task any story about philosophy should be therefore a permanent task correlations of philosophy (and its explanations along the way) with what we know once experienced or tried to understand, not referring to her language.

There is a consciousness of the world. Here arises the problem of philosophical mystery, which, as I said, it is not solved once and for all, and our activity of thinking is repeated each time anew in his terms and concepts. Wisdom, intelligence and even stupidity in philosophy do not mean that we we usually understand by wisdom, mind

However, for the philosopher the words are similar externally to the designation of human or psychological qualities do not mean these qualities. Wisdom in philosophy - some kind of art necessary to to be made and exist completely certain things. Not having certain qualities or properties, but art having your apparatus. Not a property that can be, or may not be in a person, but his skill.

It turns out human intentions (for example, desires for good, desires to be honest) is not enough. In other words, empirical, ordinary states human are not self-sufficient .

a novel, like a work, for example, painting is a construction, an art. And its effects will be effects well made design, not intentions author. If the author wrote badly, then wrote immorally. That is the work lives its own life, and, being a bad design, will produce an immoral effect. Greeks it was perfectly understood that of the intentions nothing is being built. What are intentions? - These are our qualities, states. Can be biologically smart, but it is not mind in the philosophical sense. To think accurately, there must be appropriate "muscles". Because stupidity and evil is not a consequence of our psychology, but the consequences of the fact that we do not think accurately.

In the technique of religious consciousness, this very clearly expressed in the image of the devil, who plays us regardless of our intentions .

So. - lack of self-sufficiency of human states. Necessity for man to have something that can be self-sufficient. Remember I was talking about innate ideas Descartes, which are not derivable from empirical experience . They are in us and in that the same time cannot be brought to our own virtue. We are not born wise. It's something more in us than we are themselves. Therefore, the task of philosophy consists in. to maximize release the life of something more than we ourselves. Understanding this is essence. core of philosophy. First , understanding of the lack of self-sufficiency of our natural abilities, qualities and properties, or what we are nature. And secondly . understanding that the most valuable thing in us is something more than we ourselves. And you need art, some technique or "attachment" running on in order to free up the field as much as possible or pure space in which it is would show up. That is, a kind negative, negative technique - not I do it out of habit, but I have to do everything again do, and then it will, something will appear. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the language of philosophy contains words that do not have subjective, literal meaning. Philosopher does not say that there is such a thing. He just enters a character, assuming that if you relate to the soul as symbol, you will free up space so that she lives in you. For this some technique is needed. Technique contains in itself an apparent affirmation about the soul. BUT in reality there are no statements. buddhist philosophy, For example, he believes that individual the soul does not exist at all, it does not characteristic of a person: "I" considered in it as an illusion, although and sustainable. On the contrary, it introduces the concept of some one world and one soul, projections of which are illusory or multiple "I".

As the mystics said - consciousness is a singulare tantimi, that is plural-singular. Multiple singularity

Philosophy of Berkeley - is it possible to perceive the world as it is, regardless of perception?

because at the same time we are "born" in. that is greater than ourselves. And this is clearly not nature. Life goes on and we we are, as it were, in a gap, in some the gap between nature and man-made world, artificial formations. And in the middle lives something more than we ourselves. which we need only worry about.

How is the world given to our perception? When we talk about the world and perception, in language involuntarily the assumption arises, that we can have peace regardless perception and compare it with perception. After all, we are still within the natural appearance of language. I it is the language that contains the statement, that if there is something, such as a tree, - then it, in itself, is a "tree" in my mind. But the very possibility of what I'm talking about, contains a parcel, that basically somehow I can know about the tree regardless of my perception and compare it with this perception. But if I'm talking about a tree at all I know only from my perception, then how else can I know about it ? I have there is no point from which I could look at the tree with one eye, second eye on the perception of wood and third eye to evaluate their compliance, adequacy. There is a philosophical term - "adequacy", adequacy. For example, they say: the idea must be adequate subject. This requires an item seize apart from the idea to compare it to her. Descartes called this is a situation of the "third eye" - there are objects, there are their images in us and there is some other eye that sees objects and compares them with images.

But let's continue our insidious questions. AT I mean, how many trees? Here, for example, in front of us is a lamppost - true, you he is not visible, but I see him through the window. He is in my consciousness, in your consciousness; but how way it sends one image to my head, one image in yours, in the third, fourth, etc. What is he breeding? But then it's the same lamppost or no ? So there is a plurality consciousness: somehow lantern the pillar manages to be in different places, himself remaining in place. And besides, he still poses a problem for us: how can I survive your lamppost and you mine? Can you test my consciousness? After all, if there are a lot of lampposts, then there is a problem of communication problem in this case penetration into the minds of each other friend. Otherwise a lamp post as possible concept does not exist because, when we communicate, we connect again images .

So, I do not give you a pillar of material the form of the word, the very speaking: s-t-o-l-b. Otherwise it happens. Transfer in progress so that when I say "pillar" it is the word in your head corresponds to column image. However, you have only one I have another one. The column multiplied. And what? To understand this word, I need get into your mind and experience it how is my mind? Is it possible? Can Is it really possible to experience someone else's consciousness?

This is the famous problem. intersubjectivity, which modern phenomenologists. To words made sense, it should be possible exchange not words, but psychological content of consciousness. Can we do this exchange ? What I'm talking about is problems that have grown out of the ordinary situation and finding their setting already on philosophical language. And first of all, This is the problem of the so-called philosophical intersubjectivity. The challenge of possibility penetration into someone else's mind. Chief The meaning of this discussion is that a philosophical doctrine is possible, in within which questions are raised (as I just set), stemming from a situation in which we ourselves got in .

Therefore, what I am now saying (not content, but what I say about it), there is already a certain kind of philosophy, as the task begins to be solved, how to convey something to another consciousness. BUT a philosophy is possible that reasons (how I talk about it), how it arises the need to talk about transfer of consciousness to each other, and showing that this is a pseudo-problem. After all, if I can show what it is arises only because of the naturalism of language, I thereby not only show that this is a pseudo problem, but also build one of variants of philosophy, in terms of which could show that there is no such problem . Because the real problem is for the multiplicity to be applied to to what is one.

And, of course, we will have a problem, how communicate with other consciousness. BUT it turns out that consciousness is not necessary communicate. It is one. And you are gone and I'm gone. There are no multiple "I". There is one, and there is an illusion of "I", occurring for certain reasons. Because if there were different consciousness, then, perhaps, it was impossible and remember. Therefore, they develop concepts for the analysis of the life of consciousness.

I said that philosophy, or wisdom, there's a reflection on what we couldn't to achieve on their own, for what it takes art. It is not enough to think biological sense of the word, we need more something. It is not enough to want good: good - art, that is, a complex technique. It is not enough to want the truth: the truth is technique. Science and philosophy and therefore exist that truth is a technique. And she lives its own life, according to its own laws. And the problem of humanity is the problem what we have or can have (and may not be, if you're not lucky) something more than ourselves.

One can introduce the concepts of artificial and natural. And discuss it at the level concepts of "nature-culture". In which are in relationship with each other culture and nature? I will be the culture to name everything that is artificial, that nature is not born when you can to discuss such a question: is everything artificial in culture? Or in other words, is everything in it is a conscious invention person controlled, or there is something else, although not natural, but at the same time the time is completely independent of human? Of course, I can say that to some extent man is a product nature. In what sense? Really is he a product of nature? Or maybe he not natural at all.

By the way, asking such questions, people then they cease to understand that they thereby invented a certain technique, which must be owned, as owned, say, muscles, - the technique is not descriptions of some contents, and reflections about what is more in a man than he is myself. So what kind of work is this invention some artificial things are not valuable in themselves and at the same time are such technique ?

For example, the primary technique of such kind appeared at one time the world religion. Religious consciousness has your technique; this is the technique apophatic, as a philosopher would say, negative when they say about God that he is not. That is what I call so - does not exist. And so, God can be only negative definitions are given. This is a very old thing, the so-called apophatic theology; then this began to be called negative by philosophers, or negative metaphysics (one of its brightest representatives was Kant). It's a skillful resolution technique problems, connections and impossibilities that occur when there is something more in me than myself, and therefore not invented by me, and at the same time not born in me by nature.

Words serve to make me competent lived and thought well. This is a warning, not a theory of the world: you will make a big a sin if one day you think that what you did, you did in effect self-worth (I quote Simeon). This is an example of a theological statement. But in theology, too, they invented quite serious, deep symbols: for example, symbol of Christ as God incarnate. And you know that this character allowed fantastic problems . When I I say: "There is something more in us than we themselves" and "the greater is more valuable, than ourselves", then you may have, first , the temptation to attribute it yourself that this is supposedly your dignity, distinguishing you from others. And secondly , there is a temptation to imitate God, because if there is no nature, then it is a divine principle. In fact here the symbol appears, according to who should strive to imitate Christ, not God. Those. concept introduction incarnate God in world religion ( in Buddhism - Buddhas in the plural number) and there is an element of the decision "machine" mental clutches and techniques. Because the otherwise we fall into blasphemy; but - God incarnate, he can still "imitate". So embodied God serves for this, not for tell a story about what exists virgin birth dependent on chance.

What I am telling you is one of examples of life techniques, spiritual hygiene life. But philosophy is not just hygiene, especially since it is being built by developing intelligent structures, the connection of which with the original base is not always visible. I emphasize very significant place in the life of cultures occupy such mental spiritual constructions, the content and purpose of which is not to describe what world.

I spoke using the expressions "more, than knowledge", "not natural, however and not artificial" in the sense that lives his own life. Remember, in some sense the wheel lives its own life - the wheel as an idea, as a reproducing form, as the horizon of our possibilities. I gave examples of that (highlighting the mosaic and arbitrarily) as it works in philosophy theory of consciousness, how the concept arose pure consciousness. All this was production specific device in order to be able to talk about issues that I told you in another connection. Problems these: what is the world? what can be said about it? That is, we need to find such a point statements about the world, which in its own way content would not depend on chance the assertion itself.

The world is happening, and there is something in it occurs regardless of the restrictions our dimension, our device. So, as a subject of such statements about the world we believe nevertheless some special, not at all empirical creature. For example, "pure me".

Maybe "pure consciousness" I told you - this is just a generalization word, the so-called general term? Yes no, this is not an abstraction of consciousness from many minds, and the final destination necessary way of reasoning. when as if all these questions are asked at once. To talk about the world something universal and necessary something happen in me (or in you). Must act of understanding. He can be, or maybe not, but from the contents of the world it does not follow: the condition of the assertion in the world of contents is a kind of "accident". When something happens even regardless whether you understand it or not, I understand or I don't understand. Need to be! That is being does not depend on thought. your being from my own thought and yours, or thinking.

Kant once had to prove that being is not a predicate, it is not implied so that it can be get in a logical way. How do I just that explained what should be, not can be inferred, it is original-original Act. Everything is in it.

I found myself in the situation that I described last time, and now I will express it a little differently: first there is a result, the world does not depend on our device. That. what we say about the world is shaped physical laws that I affirm in the world. They should not depend on the accidents of my itschgeidual devices. However, understanding depends on the existence of at least one conscious being, because the existence of consciousness and understanding is precisely being of consciousness and understanding, and not just being of a thing. Yep, yes. Therefore, I already dealing here with some strange being, as Parmenides would say; it now there is something that is recognizable by thought in as such. This is the first historical statement of the famous identity being and thinking in philosophy.

Reading Kant or Hegel, the reader tries correlate what they say about "I" - with "I" in our language. And he can bewilderment arises: what then is it like this? And it says something non-empirical subject. Why need to talk about it? Yes, because that it is inevitable. Because if I say about understanding the world, and this understanding, formulated in universal physical laws. which cannot depend on randomness and dimensions of human sense organs, while at the same time some creature must be, then I I solve the problem anyway by introducing some being, but not empirical, but "pure me".

But there is another step that is also possible. was productive in the history of philosophy, that is, for the development of the apparatus of philosophy as such. This step can be taken thinking about what I was talking about "more than myself", in me, and not in nature. In the language of classical theory consciousness, this can be said in terms such as "innate ideas" (Descartes), "pure self" (Kant). But The end point of this theory was the following statement. Kant as classical philosopher classical era has always frankly expressed that What does the logic of philosophy lead to? cars. He said that there are phenomena some things to talk about only in terms of the supernatural internal impact.

It turns out that everything I just talked about said, can be said in other terms . What is conscience? Conscience is what within us, greater than ourselves, and from beyond our control. Kant said well: supernatural inner impact. Is there supernatural? For experienced knowledge, of course it doesn't exist.

Learn more

• 
  Compound words for 1st graders
• 
  Colors songs for preschool
• 
  Memory game with sight words
• 
  Free preschool maths games
• 
  Sid the science kid i magnify
• 
  Words with dad in them
• 
  Kids showing empathy
• 
  What does level e mean in iready math
• 
  Alphabets lowercase and uppercase
• 
  Concepts of print definition
• 
  Peanut butter and jellyfish book