ABSTRACTS “CATEGORY PICTURE OF WORLD

(CATEGORY LOGIC OF THINKING)”

 

1. A definite structure and order

in the nature of thinking.

 

Whether philosophers want to discuss a problem of the systematisation of categories or not, it declairs itself as an objective necessity of thinking consciously-systemically, fully armed with category machinary of thinking.

Unconsciously people have been thinking systemically for a long time. For this purpose they developed a whole complex of questions: what? who? whose? when? where? where from? how? which? in what measure? how many? why? what for? how is it possible? etc. Category forms of thinking are clearly seen in these questions. (By the way philosophers are a kind of midwives assisting birth, i.e. making people aware of philosophical categories and concepts, in the form of categories of thinking).

Categories function, work, act in our thinking — whether we want it or not — moreover they form, organise, regulate our thinking. There is a definite structure and order in the very nature of thinking. People think as soon as they use categories.

 

2. From spontaneous using of a system of categories

to its discovering and conscious mastering.

 

If we unconsciously use the spontaneously formed system of the categories of thinking, the question arises, as to why it is necessary to discover it again, why should we construct the adequate system of philosophical categories? The thing is that the real "repay" of categories of thinking — as ideal means of cognition and transformation of the world is only possible if they are percieved as a system. Spontaneous, half-realised use of those categories is fraught with constant "lurches", absolutisation of some categories to the detriment of others.

The comprehension of category logic proceded irregularly during the historical development of philosophy. That is particularly the reason of discordance in philosophical teachings. Category culture of thinking is just the conscious, that is, sufficiently full and balanced notion of the system of category of thinking, and trough it of the objective system of the world forms of existence.

 

3. Categories arrangement.

 

A question of category arrangement, the relations between the categories arises inevitably in connection with the way a problem of category system is put. At present it is determined that categories are arranged in pairs (as diads) or triads. But correlation of categories alone (in a case of diads) or their synthesis (in a case of triads) is not sufficient to construct a category system. Such system is impossible without a subordination, hierarchical conformity of elements. That's why the construction of category system must be based on the principle of hierarchical building. Each category isn't only a system "cell", but is itself a system of more particular categories and concepts. A category is a category because it forms a concept system, that's why it is called a category, i.e. a rank, a class of definite type of concepts. Each philosophical category is a top of gigantic pyramid of concepts. And a category system as a whole is a top of a pyramid of all human concepts.

 

4. Main points of proposed category system.

 

We think that the basic categories of a system are matter and motion. They are connected by two categories — contradiction and formation (становление) which are related to each other — in a sense — as abstract and concrete unity of matter and motion. Each of these four categories is devided into a whole "bush" of more particular categories. The latter expresses their separate sides and types hierarchically.

Quality and quantity, united by measure, are sides of matter. Body, mesomatter, group of bodies (and organism-community) are types of matter. Time and space are sides of motion. "Motion in time" (chan-ge-conservation; development) and "motion in space" (locomotion-rest; behaviour) are types of motion. Opposition, difference, likeness, identity are sides and moments of dialectical contradiction. Simple (inner and outer) contradictions, complex contradictions are types of contradictions. Harmonious and antagonistic contradictions are examples of complex contradictions.

Formation is a totality which unites possibility and reality, their transitions in each other (revolution and evolution) and their mutual mediation1 (activity). Possibility is a totality which unites chance-probability-necessity and freedom. Reality unites phenomenon-statistical regularity-law and essence. Hew and old are types of reality. We define category of activity in terms of possibility and reality, inner and outer, as their mutual mediation. Goal and result are possible and real components of activity. These components are mediated by category of means.

These are the principal points of the category system proposed.

 

5. CORRESPONDENCES OF CATEGORIES.

 

In research of categories some correspondences of pairs and category families are exposed. These correspondences are such as though the same parent categories "aimed" at repeating themselves in other appearances in every category family. Let's give a fragment of the correspondence table. To identity the categories we used the terms "iden-

 

IDENTITY	OPPOSITION /DIFFERENCE/
matter universal /general / infinity whole system space conservation rest quality symmetry reversibility /"a circle of time"/ inner contradiction /link/ (unity) (harmony) reality order necessity law similarity equality absolute	motion specific /particular/ finiteness /particular/ not whole /parts/ elements time change locomotion quantity asymmetry irreversibility /"an arrow of time"/ outer contradiction /collision/ (struggle) (antagonism) possibility disorder chance phenomenon dissimilarity inequality relative

tity" and "opposition". These are the most abstract categories which play the role of money in category economy (they may be considered the parent categories mentioned above). Here are some examples to the content of the table. Take the categories of "change" and "conservation". How do they correspond to the categories-identificators (opposition and identity)? It's easy to demonstrate. Change is a transition from one condition to another, in other words it is the emergence of the difference of conditions. In its extreme manifestation change is not just a transition from one condition to another, but a transition to the opposite condition. And what is conservation? This is staying in one and the same condition. In this case there is an identity of condition (or conditions, which is the same). We can find the same correspondence between locomotion and rest on the one hand, and categories-identificators on the other one. How let's take the concepts of "chance" and "necessity". Chance is such a condition of possibility, which may be realised in one way or another. Thus chance is opposition realised in possibility or in other words it is opposition of possibilities. As for necessity, it is such a condition of possibility which causes only one definite result. It is a realised identity of possibilities.

It is interesting to compare the concepts of necessity-chance to symmetry-asymmetry. Symmetry acts are directed to the limitation of the possible variants of structures, variants of behaviour. Necessity acts in the same direction. On the other hand asymmetry acts to inerease the number of possible variants. Chance acts in the same direction. Chances create new possibilities, generate new alternatives.

One may have an analogous reasoning about the concepts of "phenomenon" and "law". Law is the identical in phenomena. And, respectively, phenomena are the different and the opposite in reality. For example, the most general laws in physics are conservation laws corresponding to the fundamental principles of symmetry. Law-general-conservation-symmetry is quite a natural chain.

We would like to note the correlation between the idea of general and the idea of whole. This correlation is seen in the following wage philosophers who advocate the primacy of whole over particular, special, specific, assert as a rule the idea of primacy of whole over not whole (particularly, over parts). It may be put more gently: philosophers accepting the reality of general, accept the reality of whole which can't be reduced to a sum of parts. Hegel, for example, adhered to this opinion. Contrary, philosophers who deny the reality of general (nominalistic tradition), deny fact, the reality of whole, reducing it to a sum of parts, qualities. Hobbes wrote, for example, "whole and the aggregate of all its parts are identical" (Hobbes T. De corpore, VII).

There are some correspondences not only between pairs of opposite categories, mentioned in the table, but also between intermediate categories, and the categories, bringing above an organic synthesis, mutual mediation of opposite categories. The latter are such categories as organism, development, behaviour, complex contradiction, freedom, essence, activity.

We can liken the correspondences of categories to periodic dependencies of chemical elements by D.I. Mendeleev. They give interesting perspectives to philosophical cognition.

 

6. METODOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF CATEGORY LOGIC.

 

We consider category logic, system of categories as a system of coordinats or orientators of thinking, which makes it possible to find one's location and direction of movement like we do it using the coordinate graticule of meridians and parallels on the globe. They help to evaluate any facts and opinions, to separate grains of truth from chaff of false notions.

Methodological function of category logic is realised in the general orientator of cognitive and practical activity as well as in a sum of methods resulting from the meaning value of separate categories.

 

С О Д Е Р Ж А Н И Е

 

1. Категориальный строй мышления ............................
2. Идея соответствий и антисоответствий .....................
3. Объяснение-анализ соответствий и антисоответствий .
4. Идея соответствий в истории человеческой мысли .....
5. Развитие концепции соответствий и ее категориально- логическое и методологическое значение ..................
Abstracts “CATEGORY PICTURE OF WORLD (CATEGORY LOGIC OF THINKING)” .................