XII Международная студенческая научная конференция Студенческий научный форум - 2020

Аннотация: В данной статье дается изложение философии Гегеля и Канта, а также становление и сущность гегелевской философии и логики с точки зрения Казахстанского философа и лауреата Абдильдина Ж.М. В статье мы даем широкое объяснение гегелевским и кантовским пониманиям принципов культуры и диалектической логики. Рассматривается актуальные проблемы диалектической логики и познаний. В статье также упоминается важность культурного воспитания для развития таких качеств, как: инициативность, креативность и способность находить альтернативные и неординарные решения. Дается подробный анализ высказываний Абдильдина и его интерпретация немецкой диалектики.

In the development of a dialectical interpretation of the phenomenon of a creative personality, special attention should be paid to the works of academician Abdildin J. M. - laureate of the State and Presidential Prizes of Peace and Spiritual Concord. Abdildin determined a historical and philosophical study of Hegel's philosophy and Kant's judgments regarding dialectical thinking. His 10 volume collection of works is highly appreciated in the field of philosophical study of dialectical logic. We suppose that the pivotal attention should be paid on the Abdildin`s “Hegel's Philosophy and Logic”. Moreover, the solution to the problem of the development of dialectical thinking regarding a person was carefully analysed.

 G.V.F. Hegel defended the point of view in which it is stated that true philosophy is concrete both in its subject and in its method. This means that the elements of its subject do not remain a scattered multitude, but enter into some special living synthetic connection, uniting them into a new, peculiar unity. According to Abdildin J. M., rational knowledge based on abstraction in private sciences always leads to the antinomies that I. Kant pointed out. The dialectic of human creativity is considered in the problem of human formation in the system of a specific culture. Analyzing the essence of the process, Abdildin disclosers the concepts of “culture” and “civilization”. [1] In addition, in the twentieth century, “culture” is semantically separated from “education” and “civilization”. It acquires its own space, stands out in a special sphere of human existence, and permeates the consciousness of the emerging modern personality. The difficulty in understanding the conditions for the development of a creative person is characterized by emergence of the opposition of culture and civilization. The change in the goal-setting of a person, his essence and utter rationalization led to the shift of attention from the field of cultural-historical tradition to socio-economic needs. Therefore, the analysis of a creative person should turn to the dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in culture. The creative person grows out of culture, from its roots in a specific cultural and historical tradition. Here we can observe the parallel drawn by the author between the formation of thinking and traditions, culture.

In modern times, the goal of the education system, from the point of view of socio-political structures based on abstract universal values. Moreover, the crucial purpose is to form a “competent member” of society, that is, maximum adaptation of a person to laws and principles, while the most significant is the perception of responsibility to society. On the one hand, culture is organic, spiritual, primary and creatively targeted. On the other hand, civilization is technical, propagated, secondary and instrumentally created, striving to expand its presence, not only geographically, but also in the system of social relations.

Abdildin revealed the fundamental significance for revealing the creative potential of a person and his spiritual connection with culture. Moreover, it has always been concrete, since it appealed to centuries-old experience and values ​​of cultural and historical integrity. The Kazakhstani philosopher noticed that each concept of dialectics can be connected with less substantial, less complex, less substantial and more substantial. It should be noted that Kazakhstan has always been distinctive in culture and creatively developed country. It has a special cultural-historical type and development mission. Kazakh culture is reflected in the global and individual revolutionary spirit. Hegelian philosophy emphasizes that the universal has a creative quality, at every moment it absolutely immanently satisfies itself in the concrete. This aspect indicates that creativity is not only self-confidence, but also a manifestation of the dialectical unity of the social community and man. Consequently, free and creative activity dialectically develops cultural and historical integrity, which is supported by the cultural and historical tradition. It forms a further opportunity and determines its abilities for further development. The essence of the universal is manifested in the individual and the concrete. In addition, following the logic of G.V.F. Hegel, Abdildin cites: "... no single entity, divorced from singularity." [2] This statement represents the inseparability of the two concepts of "culture" and "thinking." This states that a person has at the same time reason in indirect communication with other people. This means that all other generations of individuals entering into relationships with each other are interconnected. We cannot be separated from the history of previous or modern individuals.

The power of knowledge was realized, which in turn led to the creation of a scientific picture of the world, which in one form or another was enclosed in the didactic system of school education and is still being taught. However, the civilizational and materialistic approach has led to material thinking and mechanism in all areas of knowledge. It is important to note here that a creative person overcomes limited material thinking. [3] Abdildin J. M., analyzed the logical reasoning in the dialectic of G.V.F. Hegel, denoted the basis of the dialectical unity of people organic unity, which is created in a system of specific values. “The image of morality is essentially not a multitude, united in wholeness, but a substantial unity, internally differentiated into many pieces. [4]

Abdildin emphasizes: “Each nation is a special way of revealing the mind, a particular way of realizing morality, and an attempt to replace the diversity of these paths with the only true one is undoubted evidence of rationality of thinking, because it is reason that is not capable of thinking about unity as the opposite of diversity.” [5] According to Abdildin, Kant defines human freedom as the desire to know and act in accordance with necessity. It is in this way that the essence of man is manifested, and just so it designates itself as a person. This person is comprehended here inseparably from the social community. Understanding the law of being allows him to strive for actions that in reality will realize his spiritual essence, since the limitations of being are surmountable in spiritual perfection.

In contrast to I. Kant, G.V.F. Hegel, in his views on the formation of a creative person, strove to create an educational system in which the physical, mental, and moral development of a person was carried out114. I. Kant, at its core he saw discipline as the foundation of the educational system, which should develop independent thinking. According to Abdildin, “in Kant’s personality,” the aspirations of the era to create a unified theory, unified legal consciousness, and a unified system of all basic concepts of life and the world burst into the sphere of logic, into the sphere of understanding of universal forms and laws of developing thinking. ” [6] Thanks to Kant’s philosophy, the problem of development education was aimed at its dialectical unity with the cultural and historical tradition. Also, the social nature of the process of becoming a person was emphasized in the philosophy of G.V.F. Hegel. The review of reality as a result of the development of absolute being has been lent. Moreover, it has reached the highest point of formation in the classical philosophical tradition.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the philosophy of G.V.F. Hegel is the thinking of the universal, since he determined the whole process of thinking from dialectical development, aimed at self-knowledge by the absolute idea of ​​himself [7]. “Truth is the totality of the real, which is revealed to it completely, it is an absolute idea"[8]. For the philosophy of G.V.F. Hegel's important is the dialectical development of the subject of philosophy and philosophy itself. Therefore, his system is the widest in scope of the subject. Abdildin considers the Hegelian position in the thesis that philosophy is not a historical development, but a logical one. Consequently, Abdildin determines the problems of the phenomenon of a creative personality in connection with the dialectical logic of Hegel and Kant. As the author cites, “any pedagogical concept clearly proceeds from a number of general philosophical premises” [9], which are explicitly formulated in classical German philosophy.

References:

Ilyenkov E.V. Dialectical Logic / M.: "Политиздат" – 1984. – p. 5-15.

Abdildin Zh.M. Collected works: Ed.6. Hegel`s Philosophy /Астанаполиграфия– 2011. –p.219

Abdildin Zh.M. Collected works. Ed.3. Dialectics of the subject's activity in scientific knowledge /Астанаполиграфия– 2011. –p.139

Abdildin J.M. Collected works: Ed.6. Hegel`s Philosophy /Астанаполиграфия– 2011. –p.219

Abdildin J.M. Collected works: Ed.2. Principles of theory in terms of dialectics/Астанаполиграфия– 2011. –p.35-36

ИвановаТ.В. Кочевая культура как социокультурный феномен // Вестник Бурятской государственной сельскохозяйственной академии им. В.Р. Филиппова. 2015. №2 (39). С.105-109.

Ильенков Э.В. Философия и культура. М.: Издательство Московского психолого-социального института; Воронеж: Издательство НПО «МОДЭК», 2010. С.110.

Э.В. Ильенков. – М.: Изд-во Моск. психолого-социального института; Воронеж: НПО «МОДЭК», 2002. – 112 с.

Касымжанов А.Х., Кельбуганов А.Ж. О культуре мышления. М.: Политиздат, 1981. С.113.