The philosophical meaning of the problem of subject-object relations. Cognition as a subject-object relationship

Theory of knowledge

The need for knowledge is one of the essential characteristics of a person. The entire history of mankind can be presented as an accelerating process of development, expansion, refinement of knowledge - from processing technologies stone tools and making fire to ways of obtaining and using information on a computer network. Modern stage The development of society is usually seen as a transition from (based on the production of goods) to, or information (based on the production and distribution of knowledge). IN information society the value of knowledge and ways of obtaining it is constantly increasing: thousands of new books and computer sites appear in the world every day, and the share of digitized information amounts to terabytes. In such conditions, problems of cognition become increasingly important. The most general questions of knowledge are developed by a section of philosophy called epistemology (from the Greek gnosis - knowledge + logos - teaching), or theory of knowledge.

Cognition overall - creative human activity aimed at obtaining reliable knowledge about the world.

Often, knowledge requires a person to be convinced that he is right and to have special courage: many scientists went to prison and to the stake for their ideas. Thus, knowledge has social nature: it is determined by the internal needs of society, goals, values, and beliefs of people.

Since cognition is an activity, it has common features with other activities - play, etc. Therefore, in cognition we can identify elements characteristic of any type of activity - need, motive, goal, means, result.

Cognitive need is one of the most important in the structure and is expressed in curiosity, the desire for understanding, spiritual quest, etc. The desire for the unknown, attempts to explain the incomprehensible are a necessary element of human life.

Motives of knowledge varied and usually practical: we try to learn something about an object in order to understand how it can be used or how to achieve more effective use of it. But the motives can also be theoretical: a person often gets pleasure from simply solving a complicated problem. intellectual problem or discovering something new.

The purpose of knowledge is obtaining reliable knowledge about the objects under study, phenomena, and the world as a whole. Ultimately, cognitive activity is aimed at achieving truth. Truth in the classical sense is the correspondence of knowledge about reality to reality itself.

Means of knowledge in science are called research methods. These include observation, measurement, experiment, comparison, analysis, etc. (they will be discussed in detail below).

Actions in the process of cognition are also diverse. For example, the following sequence of actions is accepted: putting forward a problem, setting a hypothesis, choosing methods, studying the problem, developing a theory.

Result of knowledge- this is the actual knowledge about the subject: its external and internal characteristics, properties, elements, connections, historical development etc. Note that sometimes you can achieve a result without setting yourself conscious goals of searching for truth. Knowledge can be a by-product of other activities. For example, ideas about the properties of different materials can be obtained in the process of work or play. Therefore, we can say that cognitive activity is intertwined with all other forms of activity.

Philosophy of knowledge

In the system of diverse forms of a person’s relationship to the world, an important place is occupied by knowledge or acquisition of knowledge about the world around a person, its nature and structure, patterns of development, as well as about the person himself and human society.

Cognition is the process of a person acquiring new knowledge, the discovery of something previously unknown.

The effectiveness of cognition is achieved primarily by the active role of man in this process, which necessitates its philosophical consideration. In other words, we're talking about about clarifying the prerequisites and circumstances, conditions for moving towards the truth, mastering the necessary methods and concepts for this. Philosophical problems knowledge constitutes the subject of the theory of knowledge, or epistemology. “ Epistemology” is a word of Greek origin (gnosis - knowledge and logos - word, teaching). The theory of knowledge answers the questions of what knowledge is, what are its main forms, what are the patterns of transition from ignorance to knowledge, what is the subject and object of knowledge, what is the structure of the cognitive process, what is truth and what is its criterion, as well as many others. The term “theory of knowledge” was introduced into philosophy by the Scottish philosopher J. Ferrier in 1854. Improving the means of knowledge is an integral part of the history of human activity. Many philosophers of the past turned to the development of questions of knowledge, and it is not by chance that this problem comes to the fore and becomes decisive in the development of philosophical thought. At first, knowledge appears in naive, sometimes very primitive forms, i.e. exists as ordinary knowledge. Its function has not lost its significance to this day. As human practice develops, people's skills and abilities in understanding the real world improve, science becomes the most important means of not only knowledge, but also material production. The principles of scientific knowledge are identified, which formed the basis for the formation and organization of scientific thinking.

At the same time, general philosophical principles are identified that apply both to the world as a whole and to the sphere of cognition (the relationship of human cognition to the world), the principles of special scientific thinking and the principles of special scientific theories. One of the most powerful factors transforming the life of society in the 20th century. became science (more about science as a form of social consciousness will be discussed in topic 5). This, in turn, turned her into an object of careful and scrupulous study. A wide front of research developed, the center of which was the cognitive activity of man and society. The psychology of scientific creativity, the logic of science, the sociology of science, the history of science, and finally, science studies - this is just a short list of special disciplines that study various branches and forms of knowledge. It did not stand aside, forming a broad sphere called the philosophy of science (including a number of subsections: philosophy of biology, philosophy of physics, philosophy of mathematics).

Subject and object of knowledge in philosophy

If we consider the process of scientific knowledge as a whole as a systemic formation, then as its elements, first of all, we should highlight the subject and object of knowledge.

Subject of knowledge- it is a carrier of objective-practical activity and cognition, a source of cognitive activity aimed at the subject of cognition.

The subject of cognition can be either an individual (individual) or various social groups (society as a whole). In the case when the subject of cognition is an individual, then his self-awareness (the experience of his own “I”) is determined by the entire world of culture created throughout human history. Successful cognitive activity can be carried out provided that the subject plays an active role in the cognitive process.

Object of knowledge- this is what confronts the subject, what his practical and cognitive activity is aimed at.

An object is not identical to objective reality, matter. The object of knowledge can be both material formations ( chemical elements, physical bodies, living organisms) and social phenomena (society, relationships between people, their behavior and activities). The results of cognition (the results of an experiment, scientific theories, science in general) can also become the object of cognition. Thus, objects, things, phenomena, processes that exist independently of a person, which are mastered either in the course of practical activity or in the course of cognition, become objects. In this regard, it is clear that the concepts of object and subject differ from each other. The subject is only one side of the object to which the attention of any science is directed.

In addition to the object in scientific knowledge, they often distinguish item- part of an object that is specifically isolated by cognitive means. For example, the object of all humanities is, but the cognitive means of psychology are aimed at the spiritual world of man, archeology - at its origin, ethnography - at the morals and customs of mankind. Accordingly, the subject of these sciences is the spiritual world, origin, culture, etc.

The concept of an object is broader in scope than the concept of an object. Since the emergence of philosophy, the problem of the relationship of the subject to the object, as the relationship of the knower to the knowable, has always been in the center of attention of philosophers. The explanation of the reasons and nature of this relationship has undergone a complex evolution, going from the extreme opposition of subjective authenticity, self-awareness of the subject and the world of objective reality (Descartes), to the identification of a complex dialectical relationship between the subject and the object in the course of cognitive activity. The subject himself and his activities can be correctly understood only taking into account specific socio-cultural and historical conditions, taking into account the indirectness of the subject’s relations with other subjects. Scientific knowledge presupposes not only a conscious relationship of the subject to an object, but also a conscious relationship of the subject to himself (reflection).

From the concepts of “subject” and “object” the terms “subjective” and “objective” are derived.

Subjectively everything related to the subject, person, i.e. his will, desires, aspirations, preferences, feelings and emotions, etc. Thus, subjectivity is a characteristic of a person’s inner world or the personal impact that consciousness has on our relationship with the world. A subjective attitude towards something is, as a rule, a matter of taste and different people may be different. Subjectivity is more related to opinions than knowledge, although personal knowledge is subjective due to the fact that it belongs to a person’s consciousness and not to the surrounding world.

Objectively everything that does not depend on consciousness, will, desires. For example, objective facts or their reflections are the rotation of the Earth around the Sun, the confluence of the Volga into the Caspian Sea, the statements “Socrates is a man”, “F.M. Dostoevsky is a Russian writer”, etc.; they do not depend on our personal desires: the Earth will not stop its rotation, the Volga will not turn back, and Socrates will not become a Russian writer.

Of course, knowledge cannot be completely “purified” from a person. Cognition is influenced by social relations, culture, and era.

Ideas about the nature of subject-object relations in cognition are based on principles formulated in classical and modern philosophy:

Activity of the subject of cognition;

The mediation of the connection between subject and object;

Sociocultural conditioning of cognition.

The activity of the subject is embodied in the active nature of the cognitive relationship. Already in the simplest act of mechanical, “mindless” contemplation of any object (for example, a table), a filmogram of the movement of the pupil shows that the human eye actively perceives the table - as if feeling it, involuntarily sliding along significant contour points. In more complex cognitive situations, the subject’s activity becomes even more obvious and diverse. It is realized in the conscious (or unconscious) purposefulness of cognition, the use of certain cognitive means (often specially created), in the selection of certain fragments of reality as the subject of cognition, and finally, in the interpretation of the results of interaction with an object. Thus, we perceive things as they are woven into our activities - spiritual and practical, conscious and unconscious, etc.

The mediation of contact with an object is, first of all, determined by the use of means of cognition. A deeper understanding of this principle is associated with the statement that there is a fundamental difference between an object and the spiritual world of a person: an object cannot be an element of consciousness; to become such, it must be turned into an “image”, “idea”, “concept”. At the same time, subjective images accumulated in the spiritual world of man (humanity) themselves become the mediating link of any interaction with objects. Thus, we always deal with an object in its mediated (“transformed”) form. Material (practical) contact with an object and spiritual, cognitive contact with its “images” are intricately intertwined in any cognitive act.

Sociocultural determinism of cognition means the dependence of subject-object relations on society in the broadest sense - social relations and sustainable social structures; from the values ​​and knowledge functioning in the public consciousness; from needs, interests; from practical and intellectual resources that are used in the cognitive process; from social prejudices, illusions, etc. Sociocultural determinism gives the cognitive process universal significance and is a way to overcome the individual limitations of the subject.

All these three moments are interdependent, mediate and complement each other. From this angle we will consider the main elements of subject-object relations.

The cognitive attitudes of the subject play an important role in the structure of cognition. They characterize the predisposition of consciousness to perceive an object and information about it in a certain way. A well-known analogue of cognitive attitudes is Kantian apriorism, which was the first to reject the possibility of presuppositionless experience. Modern representations about the role of cognitive attitudes is much broader than Kant’s - they are based on the results of psychological and historical-scientific research that showed the dependence of the subject’s contact with the object on numerous emotional, psychological and intellectual factors. In scientific knowledge, the role of cognitive attitudes is played by the entire array of professional knowledge that the scientist possesses.

Cognitive attitudes predetermine the vision of an object in a certain plane. They are often sources of illusions and misconceptions, but they also constitute the necessary basis for the formation of knowledge, ordering the chaotic fragmentation of experience and curbing the unrestrained fantasies. Being the property of the subject and characterizing his activity, they mediate the vision of the object; Moreover, in origin, cognitive attitudes are largely supra-individual, formed by the educational system, the experience of life within a particular society and its culture.

The means of cognition are created or used by the subject on the basis of his initial (target) settings. In the infinite variety of means of cognition, it is customary to distinguish between natural (sense organs), artificial, material, material (instrumentation) and ideal (language, mathematical apparatus). The means of cognition not only provide contact with an object, but also often influence it, causing the object to exhibit certain properties.

An important point in understanding epistemological problems is the distinction between the object and the subject of knowledge. If an object (by definition) exists independently of the subject and is only highlighted by it, falling into the zone of the subject’s cognitive activity, then the object of knowledge is formed by the subject on the basis of his cognitive attitudes and available resources. It is obvious that ideally the properties of the object and the subject of knowledge should coincide (otherwise agnosticism is inevitable), but this coincidence is relative. Firstly, of the entire variety of properties of an object, only a part of them becomes the subject of knowledge (each individual science forms its own subject, abstracting from those properties that other disciplines study). Secondly, the object of knowledge is a certain vision of an object, its model, analogue, constructed by the subject.

The difference between the object and the subject of knowledge is evidenced by the existence of imaginary objects generated by human subjectivity and limited practical and cognitive resources. Classic examples of “imaginary objects” are “phlogiston”, “caloric” and “light hydrogen” in the chemistry of the 16th-18th centuries, “ether” in physics of the 18th-19th centuries, “advantages of developed socialism” in Soviet sociology, etc. An infinite variety of imaginary objects is characteristic of the everyday, religious-mystical, esoteric knowledge(“astral bodies”, “subtle energies”, “philosopher’s stone”, goblin, “drummers”, etc.). In all cases, the source of the emergence of an “imaginary object” is human subjectivity, endowing the object of knowledge with properties that are not inherent in the object.

“Imaginary objects” should be distinguished from “idealized objects.” “Idealized objects” (mathematical point, ideal gas) do not have material reality - they are constructed by science to understand certain universal properties of real objects, and are their generalization. Such a construction is not completely arbitrary, as long as it reflects objective reality. An “idealized object” is, in fact, one of the means of cognition, but, at the same time, it can act as a completely respectable object of cognition. It is important to keep in mind that the subject of knowledge in in this case are precisely the universal properties inherent in any class of objects. Epistemological problems that arise when transferring knowledge about an “idealized object” to real objects are studied by the philosophy of science and epistemology.

The result of the interaction of the subject, object and means of cognition is information. In ordinary language, the term is sometimes used as a synonym for knowledge. This is actually not true. Unlike information, knowledge cannot exist outside the subject. It is the subject who transforms information into knowledge, giving it an ideal and subjective meaning, forming a sensory or mental image of reality on its basis.

In the process of interpretation, the role of evaluative-normative and motivational-volitional factors is great; the integrity of all components of a person’s inner spiritual world is most clearly manifested in it. In this process, the cognitive attitudes themselves change - they are adjusted in accordance with new information, the ability to comprehend it and the results of this comprehension. It is in this sense that cognition can be fruitfully viewed as a change in the state of the subject.

The subject of cognition can be an individual, a scientific team, a social group, a generation, or, in the extreme case, all of humanity as a whole. Each of these and other structural formations is characterized by its own cognitive capabilities, experience of interaction with objects, structure of thinking, and prejudices. Individual person is a subject of cognition, concentrating in his activity the cognitive abilities and shortcomings inherent in those structural levels in which he was formed as a person. Thus, the process of cognition turns out to be socially determined “from the inside,” on the part of the subject.

Internal sociocultural determinacy is complemented by the action of factors “external” in relation to the cognitive situation - needs, interests, motives for activity arising from social relations and cultural characteristics. The cognitive significance of the sociocultural determinism of knowledge is ambiguous. It gives general significance to the results of cognition and promotes movement towards an adequate reflection of reality, and is a tool for overcoming a person’s individual imperfection, randomness and fragmentation of his vision of the world. But it itself can be a source of illusions, a conscious or unconscious distortion of reality.

Another important problem of epistemology is the question of the interaction between man and the knowable world, or, in the language of philosophy, the problem relationship between the subject and object of knowledge "Already in antiquity, some philosophers expressed individual guesses about the nature of this relationship. Thus, in the works of Empedocles, Democritus and others, the so-called “theory of outflow” was developed. According to it, thin films (images) are constantly separated from the surface of objects, repeating the external characteristics of a thing. They enter the pores of our senses and cause corresponding sensations.

However modern interpretation This problem dates back to the New Age - to the works of Bacon and Descartes. They clearly expressed the idea that the process of cognition is an inextricable unity of the subject and object of cognition. Under subject knowledge is understood as the one who knows things and phenomena (in the very simple version- person), and under object knowledge - that which is known, i.e. objects, phenomena, properties, etc., included in the sphere of human cognitive interests.

At the same time, the principles of interaction between the subject and the object of knowledge (and the interpretation of them themselves) were presented differently in the history of philosophy. So, in the XVII – XVIII centuries. Two alternative models of cognition have been formulated: object-naturalistic And subjective-reflexive. The first model, characteristic primarily of traditional mechanistic materialism, essentially assigned the main role in cognitive interaction to the object of cognition. The subject of cognition in this model is a separate individual (“epistemological Robinson”), who, being a natural being, interacts with the object of cognition only according to the laws of nature (nature). The object of cognition physically affects the subject and is reflected in its creation in the form of mirror sensory images, pictures of things. “The cause of sensation,” says, for example, Hobbes, “is... an object that presses on the corresponding organ.” These sensory data are processed and analyzed by the subject with the help of the mind - thus the essence of a thing and the laws of its existence are discovered. A person is assigned here mainly the role of an observer. And although he can conduct various experiments with things, nevertheless, even in this case the subject primarily only records experimental data. This model represented the process of cognition in a very simplified and crude way, but it nevertheless managed to detect its individual real features - physical activity the object being studied and the role of human sensory experience in cognition.

The second model was developed in German classical philosophy and placed the creative activity of the subject in first place in the process of cognition. This activity was understood primarily as the spiritual activity of a person - his mental operations with a cognizable object, reflection (reflection) on it. Cognizing an object, the subject is not content with sensory data about it, he creatively correlates them with his knowledge, views the object through the prism of existing ideas, and tries to identify the human dimension of things. The main idea of ​​this model is that in cognition a person not only reflects the object of study, but also actively influences it, adds certain subjective aspects to the image of the object. In the words of Berdyaev, knowledge “cannot be only an obedient reflection of reality... - it is also an active transformation, comprehension of existence.”

Since the middle of the 19th century. in Marxism and others philosophical schools a modern model of the cognitive process is developing - active. Its essence can be reduced to the following basic provisions.

1. Cognition is the active activity of the subject, aimed at the object of cognition with the aim of revealing its basic properties and connections. A cognizable object is “given” to a person not in the form of contemplation, but in forms of activity. In other words, we recognize objects as they are revealed by our actions with them, and especially by practice, which gives the subject an angle of view on the object of knowledge.

2. The subject of cognition is always a social phenomenon. Any person who experiences the world is part of some community of people: a team, a social group, the whole society. In cognition, not only subject-object, but also subject-subject relations are realized. The subject of cognition in his cognitive activity is connected - directly or indirectly - with other people, uses not only his personal, but also universal human experience and reason. A specific person is thus the “authorized representative” of humanity.

3. The process of cognition is directed and organized by one or another sociocultural program. It is formed under the influence of the personal and social needs of the subject, his goals, knowledge, worldview and other components of the culture in which he lives and acts. It is the level and content of individual culture that gives the subject a certain vision of the objects being studied and the interpretation of the acquired knowledge.

4. All components of a cognitive relationship - the subject, his activity, the object of knowledge - are concretely historical and dynamic, they change as society develops. The spiritual baggage of the subject grows, the ways of knowing the world change qualitatively, and the world of objects cognizable by man expands.

So, the essence of the process of cognition consists in two-way interaction, a dialogue between the subject and the object of cognition. On the one hand, the object influences a person, it says something about itself, and this influence is a necessary (but not sufficient!) condition for cognition. It is easy to imagine that if our knowledge were reduced only to this influence, then knowledge about things and phenomena would be very superficial and random. On the other hand, the subject actively influences the cognizable object, asks it about what the object itself is silent about (for example, about the laws of its existence), and forces it to answer in one way or another. To receive “answers” ​​to your questions from an object is the most important meaning of knowledge and its goal.

The problem of the subject and object of knowledge

Subject of knowledge- the bearer of activity, consciousness and cognition is a person who cognizes a fragment of objective reality isolated in the process of practical and cognitive activity, who has mastered the world created by humanity and forms of culture, actively uses the knowledge accumulated before him, preserves it and generates new ones.

The determining role in the formation of a specific individual subject of cognition is played by the culture developed by society, a kind of “public spirit”, “inorganic nature”, which appears for each individual in externally given forms of culture.

By mastering these forms, an individual joins the social subject (society with its world of culture), makes himself a part of it and gradually acts as a cognizing subject.

Object of knowledge- this is a fragment of reality that confronts the subject in his cognitive activity. The object of knowledge is such a part of objective reality that is in interaction with the subject, which is highlighted by him with the help of practical and cognitive activities developed by society at a certain stage of its development. For example, elementary particles became the object of cognitive activity only at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, when the science and practice of that time made it possible to study them.

Cognition, therefore, is a special relationship between subject and object. What is the nature of this relationship, what is its essence? In the history of philosophy, the interpretation of this relationship has changed, as, indeed, the interpretation of the subject and object of knowledge themselves has changed. In this sense, we can talk about the following basic philosophical models of the subject-object relationship:

1. An object-naturalistic model, in which the main role is assigned, essentially, to the object of cognition, and self-knowledge is understood as the process of reflecting an object in the consciousness of the subject.

Its origins lie in ancient philosophy, although the very concepts of subject and object of knowledge began to be clearly used in epistemology only in modern times. Thus, in the works of Empedocles, Democritus and other thinkers of antiquity, the so-called “theory of outflows” was developed, according to which thin films (“images”) are constantly separated from the surface of objects, repeating the external characteristics of the thing. They enter our body (for example, the eye) and cause corresponding sensations in the mind. Despite the naivety of this theory, the main idea of ​​the object-naturalistic model of cognition is clearly visible in it: the object of cognition influences the subject.

This model took shape most clearly in the mechanistic materialism of the 17th-18th centuries. Its main provisions can be summarized as follows. The subject of cognition is a separate individual (“epistemological Robinson”), who, being a natural being, interacts with objects in a purely physical laws, its role is reduced mainly to the contemplation of knowable objects. And although they can use various experimental operations with them, nevertheless, in this case, the subject acts primarily in the role of an observer, recording experimental data. The object of knowledge, the natural body, actively influences the subject and evokes in him sensory images, “pictures” of things. “The cause of sensation,” says, for example, T. Hobbes, “is... an object that presses on the corresponding organ.” These sensory data are processed and analyzed by the subject with the help of the mind, thus revealing the essence of a thing, the laws of its existence. All our knowledge, therefore, has its source in sensory-perceptible objects, and the process itself is a “mirror” reflection of the object in the consciousness of the subject.

This model is very simplified and crude, especially with modern point vision, represents the process of cognition. At the same time, she managed to capture some features that are actually inherent in most cognitive acts: the “activity” of an object, the situation of its reproduction in the consciousness of the subject, the role of sensory experience in cognition. These ideas were later rethought and used by various epistemological theories. subject object cognition relation

2. Subjective-reflexive model, in which preference is given to the creative activity of the subject, his theoretical understanding (reflection) of the object and the process of cognition itself.

The origins of this model are found already in the philosophy of R. Descartes, who drew attention to the problem of the reliability of knowledge and the justification of knowledge received by the subject. The philosopher seeks its solution in the sphere of consciousness of the subject: it is in it that the theoretical basis of knowledge can be found. Noting that knowledge of external objects is always indirect, Descartes emphasizes that a person has direct access only to his subjectivity, and therefore the simplest and most reliable is the knowledge of subjective states. The basis of this certainty is the thought of the subject’s own existence: “I think, therefore I exist” - the most undoubted and reliable truth. True, in knowledge, according to Descartes, one should also assume the real existence outside world, for the God who created him cannot be a deceiver. But the main thing in knowledge still lies in the activity of the subject’s thinking, in his critical reflection on the knowledge he receives.

The subject-reflexive model acquired its complete forms in German classical philosophy, which also focuses on the internal activity of consciousness (I. Kant, I. Fichte, G. Hegel). Her merit was, first of all, a revision of the traditional idea of ​​the relationship between subject and object: from a subject-contemplator, a person turns into a subject-doer. He actively invades the object of cognition, not only reflecting its properties in his consciousness, but also, in a sense, creating them - the characteristics of the cognized object depend on the methods of cognition. Sometimes this idea is expressed even in an overly harsh form: “reason does not draw its laws... from nature, but prescribes them to it,” but it clearly expresses the main idea of ​​this epistemological model - the inevitable influence of the subject on the object of knowledge and the inclusion of subjective moments in his cognitive image. Cognizing an object, a person is not satisfied with the sensory data received directly, but creatively actively correlates them with his knowledge, “views” the object through the prism of existing ideas, and tries to identify the “human meaning” inherent in it. In German classical philosophy, positions on the social and cultural parameters of the cognitive process (Kant), on the determining significance of activity in cognition (Fichte), etc. also become a priority. And although this model also has certain shortcomings (in particular, it can be reproached for some absolutization of the theoretical activity), within its framework, nevertheless, those epistemological principles were developed, which later largely formed the basis of the latest theories of knowledge;

• 3. The modern model - let's call it multi-subject-activity model. Its origins lie in the two previous concepts, but the main content developed in the 19th-20th centuries. as a result of the development of philosophy and scientific knowledge. The essence of this model can be reduced to the following main theses:
  • · the defining moment in subject-object relations is the active creative activity of a person, aimed at changing the object of knowledge with the goal of revealing its essence. It consists of material and spiritual components. Material activity (practice) is associated with real changes in an object as a result of a certain physical impact on it, spiritual activity - with mental operations with it. Knowledge, thus, “cannot be only an obedient reflection of reality... - it is also an active transformation, comprehension of being.” The object being studied is presented to the subject not in the form of contemplation, but in the forms of activity, through the prism of applied practice and used knowledge. In other words, we know objects only as our activity reveals them;
  • · the subject of cognition is always “socially colored”. Any person who experiences the world is part of one or another community of people - a professional team, a social group, society, all of humanity. Therefore, the active influence of a person on the subject of knowledge, one way or another, implies the explicit or implicit presence in this process of all human generations, more precisely, their practical and spiritual heritage. The individual, therefore, as a subject of knowledge is the “authorized representative” of humanity;
  • · the cognitive activity of the subject is directed and organized by a certain sociocultural program. It is formed under the influence of individual and social needs, goals, knowledge, worldview and other components of culture in the field of which the subject acts. In turn, the program of activity determines the choice of the object of cognition, orients the subject to study the specific properties of the object, and determines the use of certain means and methods of cognition. It is the level and content of culture accepted by the subject of cognition that “gives” him a certain vision of the objects being studied and the interpretation of the new knowledge acquired;
  • · all components of a cognitive relationship - the subject, his activity, the object of knowledge - are dynamic and historical, changing with the development of society. The “spiritual baggage” of the subject increases, the means and methods of his activity change qualitatively, and the world of objects he cognizes expands. As a result, active human intervention in the reality being studied increases, which ultimately leads to an ever deeper penetration into the hidden essences of phenomena.

This model of cognitive attitude quite successfully captures its main aspects. Therefore, one way or another, it is used by almost all epistemologies, although it can receive different interpretations. At the same time, it would be wrong to consider it the ultimate truth: there is no doubt that the development of society and culture will sooner or later lead to serious changes in the cognitive process, which will require a new assessment of the role and functions of the subject and object of knowledge.

So, the essence of a cognitive relationship consists in two-way interaction, a “dialogue” between the subject and the object of knowledge. On the one hand, an object physically influences a person, it itself “says” something about itself, and this is a necessary but insufficient condition for cognition. It is easy to imagine that if the subject-object relationship were reduced only to this influence, human knowledge would be superficial and rather random. On the other hand, the subject actively acts with the cognizable object, asks it about what the object itself is “silent” about (for example, about the laws of its existence) and forces it to “answer” in one way or another. To receive an answer to your questions from the object is the most important meaning of the subject’s cognitive activity.