NOT APRIORY KNOWLEDGE BUT KNOWLEDGE – FAITH. WORLD BY
KANT AND WORLD BY HEGEL.
Dark matter and dark energy are lately receiving a lot of controversial
judgments while overall leaving us with impossibility of the efforts to detect the
events and essence of a new area of objective reality. At the first sight, this
dilemma suggests segmentation of the Universe into the types of matter principally
cognizable and the types that remain incognizable (probably for the time being?).
So far all attempts are in vain, for a thing in itself is not yet a thing to us.In other
words,Hegel establishes all kinds of the matter as a world of universal connection
and cognoscibility in one case, and Kantian thing in it in another.
This is also supported by the fact that each of the worlds (visible Universe
and dark matter and dark energy) is intrinsic to its single certainty, its single
quality. These certainties with enormous variation of quality do not show sign of
Optimists would not rush to resolve the issue in Kant's favor, however these
aspects should not be ignored by the science. Kant's important judgment is the
difference between cognition of local reality available for trial, and universal
definitions of a priory knowledge.
There is no matter, there is only faith placed in the existence of the matter,
which emanates from alleged semblance or identity of the matter with its
appearances. The idea of identification of «one» with «another» is wonderfully
expressed in its absolute form in Hegel: «all rational is real, all real is rational». In
our case: appearances of the matter are identical or similar to the matter itself or, in
better words, by the appearance of the matter one can cognize the very matter. And
this is the concept of cognoscibility of the world. Meanwhile, we are not
rejectingthe concept of world cognoscibility, but rather challenging the existing
forms of cognoscibility, when appearance of the matter allegedly reflects the
matter per se.We see walls, structures, trees, people, city, stars, and the sky –
anything, however these are not the matter but its appearance. Such an approach
should not be treated as Berkeleianism or nonberkeleianism, we do not reject
scientific materialism, and the question is to identify the problem emanated in
association with the attempts to find a scientific faith in the process of cognition.
Neither our approach to this Universe involves Kantianism – things in themselves
for we acknowledge cognoscibility of the world as a comprehensive concept. We
are not rejecting something beyond our consciousness and feelings. However, one
has never ever seen the matter, seen is just its appearance. It is based on
appearance properties of the matter, on their interaction and studies that we judge
about the matter. We assert, for instance, existence of one world based on the
oneness of appearance of the matter. But can it not be a non-continuity of the
matter before its appearance in the external connection system. A good example is
the existence of this Universe and dark matter and dark energy. Quality gradient
among the worlds can be absolute and contacts among them impossible. When we
state that «matter is nonexistent»we reject the faith or acknowledgement of a thing
existing beyond our feelings and consciousness however not in the kind traditional
philosophy is accustomed with.Matter can be disintegrated in the infinite worlds
exposing the unity in the definite of a certain specific world. It is in the definite of
a certain world, particular Universe that the oneness and holism are exposed,
however they can be not available in the infinity as well. Attempting to capture
infinity with the faith in infinity, one tries to «expand infinity» of his own world.
Breaking out from local to infinite and only based on scientific belief one builds up
the concept of matter.
Aristotle’s extraordinary statesmanship and stroke of genius are astonishing,
who at the dawn of antique philosophy emphasized the subjective truth that it can’t
lay claim to objectivity without.
It was given in his time at the root of the
problem.No pun intended, objective is initially subjective and not just by the form
of it at that.
This article is not aiming to study the historical problem but it has to be
noted that Aristotle in his works already showed highlights of terms and solutions
for the scientific challenge. In Metaphysics, for example, Aristotle focuses on
crucial aspects of faith: «but opinion is associated with faith (indeed, one who has
an opinion, can't help but believe this opinion), meanwhile faith is not common in
animals, but imagination is. Further, any opinion is accompanied by faith, while
faith – by conviction and conviction by reasonable ground (logos)»[1, c. 431]. We
believe,by Aristotleits essential to acknowledge that true opinion is faithlike
connotation:«Faith is acknowledging something as truth without relying on facts or
logic, just based on inner (subjective) confidence that requires no proof though
sometimes finds them....».This definition is not formulated clearly: often times
faith needs evidences and logic all the way through the boundaries of thesis: I
believe since preposterous.
When a man has knowledge of something, he has faith, confidence in that
whatever he knows is true. He can think about falsity of some knowledge however
in this case he believes in the falsity of knowledge. Reason is based on faith, while
faith – on reason.
To prove it is easy. As an example, lets take a piece of bread. A man, before
taking a bite of it, sees and touches it, however not fully. A man is unable to have a
full knowledge of something. To see fully what a piece of bread is composed of is
not possible to him fundamentally. But the food intake process requires of him to
trust his senses and reasons that tell him the bread is fine and eatable. A man
should trust in what he eats relying on his senses and reason. Life cannot be
executed without the faith. And it is at every step.
Science applies a concept of likelihood of events.It's a unity of definite and
indefinite in the impact of events. This concept in a man's every day life is built
upon the unity of knowledge and faith.As we have pointed out, a man is unable to
have a full knowledge of a subject of his concentration; it provides a ground for the
faith in order to obtain a better subjective certainty for decision-making.A man
takes a decision without a full knowledge and faith; incomplete knowledge forms a
ground for confidence in success of his deeds or activities.
To further build up knowledge with faith for decision-making is subjective,
for it relies on human faith, and it is objective as well as it is associated with
objective likelihood. A fan of opportunities with different likelihoods.
Based on the developments in Aristotle’s position it becomes clear that the
very first knowledge–faith is faith in truth of one's opinion. Without accentuating
this issue, it can be brought to apparently absurd thesis. It can appear that whatever
a man does state, it is through faith in his opinion that he states the truth in the first
instance. A man from this perspective can assert atheism or faith in God, duality
or plurality of the reality, or any other thing but in each particular case he can
believe in true nature of his statements. At this stage all the different controversial
opinions are tantamount and equivalent. Even if any of these opinions relies on
experience – practice. The practice itself is exposed to subjectivism for it is based
on the faith in truth of practice as a criterion of truth. In other words, any opinion
logically and practically rationalized, or the one built on other arguments and
evidencescannot be absolutely objective and absolutely true. Between a man and
objective or absolute truth there is subjectivity. In other words there comes a
question whether our knowledge, any truth on the basis of its reality are relative?
This again brings to light our knowledge about matter that rather oddly is
complimented by faith in its existence. Important in this aspect is truth: there is no
matter, however we trust in the existence of matter. All we see is appearance of
matter always and everywhere while matter itself was never seen without its
appearance, it is nonexistent in its pure form, if only its infinite appearances across
the Universe. Matter as a whole was never seen or sensed. We trust that all we
can see everywhere is only an appearance of something, which we believe in as in
the existing matter. However, the truth itself by the logic of our judgments carries a
moment of subjectivity. Hence absolute truth doesn't exist: we believe in absolute
or objective truth, without this subjectivity any human judgment cannot be.
We not only can't see a matter without its appearance but also are doomed to
believe in its existence. Based on simple and complicated logical operations,
judgments, often coming from practice and experience, we conclude the existence
of matter that is hidden from us «under» its appearances, never actually
manifesting itself in its pure form. We can only trust that matter exists for we
believe in its current existence. Of interest are J. Bruno's judgments though on a
rather different aspect, we'll provide them for more textual clarification of our
issue. In out view, Bruno's judgment is fair, when he notes that «no one can keep
you from using the name of the matter your way as similarly many schools having
own variety of values» [3, c. 1996]. J. Bruno for another aspect, relying on
Aristotle’s arguments, suggests: «Thus, as in art, in the infinite modification (if it
was possible) of forms, they preserve within one and the same matter… same is in
nature, in the process of infinite modification and adherence of forms one after
another, there is always one and the same matter» [4, c. 1996].In other words no
matter what item we are going to take, «under» it there is one and the same
matter.However to discover it as it is with sensory organs is impossible.
Analyzing Kant's ideas, Heisenberg underlines that experience never
attaches any universality to our judgment. For instance, the sentence «Sun rises
every morning» means that we do not know based on the past any exception from
the rule and hence we believe it will rise again in the future. However, one can
suggest an exception from the rule. If the judgment has a universal nature, i.e. if
one can't think of any exception, it should be a priori» [5, c. 47]. We won't go into
details about Kant's theory but we will underline an important idea that any
concept that has a universal nature, within the aspect of our study is based on faith
in this universality rather than on a priori. Universal nature of certain knowledge
unlike Kant arises not on the basis of a priori knowledge but on the basis of faith in
universal nature of concepts.
We shall turn to an aspect that was highlighted by Kant while introducing a
prioriknowledge: infeasibility to understand experience-based universality. In fact
it is not about them, it’s about faith in what can't be embraced by mind based on
experience. There is knowledge based on experience, practice and there is
knowledge based on faith. They are interrelated.
The matter, as a universal concept, originates not only from experience but
firstly from faith in its universality. Meanwhile, much tells us that matter is broken
up into worlds or universes and no contact among them is possible due to absolute
variation of their qualities and certainties[6,].
To that effect we have been introducing in scientific definition the
involvement and noninvolvement categories. Broken up worlds that matter is
likely comprised of are not involved in each other's processes, they lack any
interaction. In this sense lack of interaction among one another is similar to
nonbeing. Nonbeing in one world is a being in another world, certainty of one
world fails to find certainty of another.
Every step from local experience to universality there is a reason for new
knowledge to arise based on faith as the way to refurbish an experimental
On the other hand, we can apply world cognoscibility concept within the
limits of this Universe however never with regard to the matter beyond it.
Acknowledgingexistence of other worlds not involved in the process of this
Universe is amount to the denial of their being, denial of the world cognoscibility
concept beyond this Universe.Disruptiveness of matter leads to the state, when
cognoscibility concept is real in one case while in other parts of the matter, using
Immanuel Kant's definition, is void so that thing in itself will prevail.This Universe
is thing in itself getting to be a thing to us but only in this Universe. The thesis will
be refuted by successful attempts to find a certainty such as dark matter and dark
energy, by discovery of their certainty by the certainty of this world.Each world
has its own certainty; interaction proves that certainties are available to be
Immanuel Kant's studies are given a new dynamic. Involvement and noninvolvement categories are available everywhere in this world, in every item. In
this Universe there are no things in themself. In the processes of interaction, nearly
always not quite fully covering the objects, there is something involved in them
and something not involved.Consequently, part of the processes not involved in the
interaction, appear as a non-being thing for another thing that has joined the
interaction. A thing is not only an identity of a being and non-being by Hegel, but a
disintegration of a process into those that are subject matter for another thing, and
others are non-beingas those not involved in the interaction.
A question arises: is it not easier to decline the acknowledgment of the
existence of other worlds if they appear as things in themselves identical to nonbeing?
Example with the dark matter and dark energy suggests that such worlds do
exist and the concept is supported by natural scientists. If we take being and nonbeing in one thing for another thing within the interaction, it’s just one aspect of a
mobile controversy of the being and non-being in the things with dynamic edges.
A thing having impact on another thing is causing a certain mobile matter nonmatter relationship within it.
«There is no matter » – and it's not a metaphor for a more embossing
expression of faith in a universal concept, which mind without faith cannot
There is no matter in its pure form, as something existing as a keystone. There is a
contrary thesis: appearance of the matter is the matter. Then the matter doesn't
serve as a keystone but is rather enshrined in infinite appearances. However
throughout millenniaAristotle’s thesis had been a leading concept of philosophic
studies and the matter had to be viewed as universality that was and is expected to
be believed in. Experience without faith can't help mind to transition to
understanding the universality.
At the same time it has to be noted that non-involvement of other worlds in
the processes of this Universe, other parts of the interrupted matter in a form of
many other worlds beyond contact with this world stands for the fact that the
matter is real and not real as being.It constitutes identity of being and non-being in
one and the same not just in Hegelian sense of word, it is also broken parts of
being that are non-being for one another.
It occurs due to the fact that certainty of one world does not show the
certainty of another. Among the worlds there can be an infinite variation of quality.
1. Aristotle. Metaphysics. Assays in 4 volumes. Volume 1.//Moscow: «Mysl» C.431
3. J. Bruno, 1940 / World of Philosophy: Book for reading. In 2 V., Part 1.
Original philosophic problems, definitions and concepts. – M.: Poliizdat,
1991. – С. 1996.
5. V. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, M. Science
6. L. Hindilis, Multitude of Inhabited Worlds. Methodological
aspects/Universe, astronomy, philosophy//Moscow State University Edition,
7. I. Asadullaev. Being – dissonance symphony/Dushanbe: Эр-граф, 2014. – С.
104-115,242-253. Internet, I. Asadullaev, Being – dissonance
8. Being and non-being of many universes. About new philosophic categories
of involvement and non-involvement// VAK Journal “Politics and Society»
№9, 2011. Socio-political Institute of Russian Academy of Science. Russian
journal on social politics, pgs. 82-87.
9. Internet: Dark Energy, published admin in пт., 2006-12-22 03:00; (interview
with senior scientific assistant of Nuclear Research Institutes of Russian
Academy of Sciences, Academician Valery Rubakov)
10. Avicenna. Essays, Volume 1//Dushanbe: Donish, 2005. – С. 183.
11. I. Asadullaev. Freedom generates hope//»Business and Politics» 15 August,
12. Aristotle. Essays in 4 volumes. Moscow: «Mysl, V. 3, 1981. – С. 391.
13. B. Kusnetsov, Einstein. Life. Death. Immortality/ Moscow: “Nauka», 1972.
– С. 133.
15. Aristotle 1976 –Aristotle. Essays in 4 volumes. М., 1976.
16. AbuBaker Ar-Razy 1990 –
Medicine/Preamble. Dushanbe: Irfon, 1990.
17. Avicenna 2005 –Essays. Dushanbe: Donish, 2005.
18. Heisenberg 1990 –B. Heisenberg. Physics and Philosophy. Part and a
whole: Translated from German. Moscow: Nauka. Chief editorship, Physics-Math.
19. Aristotle 1976 –Aristotle. Assays in 4 volumes. Moscow: Mysl, 1976
20.BertramRussell. Wisdom of the West/M.: Publishing House «Respublika»,
1998. – С. 226.
21.I. Prigozhyn, I. Stanger. Order from chaos: New dialog of human with
nature:Translated from English/General edition of V. Arshinova, Y. Klimontovich
and Y. Sachkov.- M.: Progress, 1986. —432 с.
22.Unity of material and ideal, and expansion of semblance (universal code of
opposing proportional activity) / VAK Journal «Politics and Society» №3, 2011.
Institute for Socio-Political Researches of Russian Academy of Sciences. Russian
journal on social politics.
23.E. Ilyenkov, Dialectic Logics. PolitIzdat, 1984. – С. 165.
24.Avicenna. Collection of philosophical works/Moscow: «Nauka», 1980. – С.
25.M. Lomonosov. Full collection of writings. Volume 3/M. -L.: Publishing House
of USSR Academy of Science, 1952. – С. 153.
26.Reflection, Darwin, Sufism. Universal law of reflecting proportion. /VAK
Journal «Politics and Society» №12, 2012. Institute for Socio-political Studies of
Russian Academy of Sciences. Russian journal on social politics. Pgs. 86-92.
27. К. Villy, V. Detye. Biology. – Moscow:Mir, 1975. – С. 220.
28. Aristotle. Collection in 4 volumes. Volume 3/ Moscow: «Mysl», - 1981. – С.
29. Georg WilhelmFredrik Hegel. Writings of various years in 2 volumes. Volume
2// Moscow: «Mysl», 1971. – С. 104.
30. Internet: Dark energy, Published admin в пт., 2006-12-22 03:00; (Interview
with lead scientific assistance of Nuclear Research Institute of RASc., Academician
31. See.Universe, astronomy, philosophy // MSU, 1988.
32. L. Hindilis. Multiple inhabited worlds. Methodological aspects / Universe,
Astronomy, Philosophy // MSU Publishing House, 1988. – С. 93.
33. V. I. Arshinov, Y.L. Klimontovich, Y.V. Sachkov. Natural Science and
Development: a dialog with the past, present and future (Post Scriptum) // Ilya
Prigozhin, Izabella Stengers. «Chaos from Order» / 1986. – С. 420, Internet.
34. V. Kusmin. Concept of Consistency in K. Marx’s theory and methodology /
М.: PolitIzdat, 1976. – С. 18-19.
35. N. Maiseyev. Vernadsky and modern times. – Questions of Philosophy. 1994.
№4. с. 13.
36. V. F. Asmus. Metaphysics of Aristotle // Aristotle. Collection in 4 volumes. V.1
/ М.: «Mysl», 1975. – С.34.
37. Mendeleev's Periodic System, General theory of interactions: www.b-i-on.ru/theory/atom/periodicheskaja-sistema-mendeleeva/.
38. D. I. Mendeleyev. Collection of works, volume 2 / Publishing House of USSR
Academy of Sciences, 1934. _ С. III.
39. Vladimir Zhdanov. Plasma in Space. Krugosvet (Around the Globe). Verified
on 21 February 2009. Archived from original source on 22 August 2011. See:
40. Mendeleyev's Periodic System, General theory of interactions: www.b-i-on.ru/theory/atom/periodicheskaja-sistema-mendeleeva/.