Research article
Issue: № 1 (8), 2013

Grushko M.A.

Nizhny Novgorod State Pedagogical University named after K. Minin



A question of cognition of the world and the role of human in it are taught upon in the article, the author’s position is compared with Platon’s theory, correlation of such categories as consciousness, thinking, cognition, form, function and others is given.

Keywords: consciousness, thinking, cognition, identity, proportion

Many philosophers were interested in the process of cognition and gave their own theories about it and in one or another way explained what role a human plays in it. I supposed, that such a proportional identity is possible to adduce – consciousness / thinking / cognition : God / providence / world : substance / form / function. Now let’s give logical foundations for that.

Firstly, we’ll have a look at the correlation of the first and the second parts (consciousness / thinking / cognition : God / providence / world). Human sciences, particularly linguistics with its Sepir and Worf”s hypothesis, have proved, that our consciousness (spirit) constructs this world under the action of mind. It as though puts our experience in order. And if consciousness constructs a system from our experience at the microcosmic level (because consciousness, thinking and cognition concern a human), so at the macrocosmic level something constructing the world should correlate to it. Such a correlation is God (it’s enough to remember mythological Purusha or Ptah). Our mind becomes apparent in thinking, And because of only it models the world, then acts of world creation are correlation to it. In my opinion, it’s better to name it providence (providentia). This act is eternal. The final point of thinking is cognition – such a world as it apeears in our consciousness.

Thus, these categories can be established on the base of correlation between microcosm and macrocosm for a man is to God like this.

If to use this proportion to things in general, we’ll get the third part of the identity (substance / form / function). I’ll illustrate it on the example of a bathtub:

substance – something

form – container

function – for people to wash.

A complete image of a bathtub is made up by the definitions “container” (for water) and “for people to wash”. If we take away the final result (function), then we’ll get only a sort of things, where a bathtub doesn’t differ from a basin or a glass. Further, to come to pure idea of the thing, all of material signs should be taken off (a form turns into substance), a thing isn’t individual anymore, it turns into something. But a form is made up by some material. So, we’ve come to the conclusion that the idea of a thing is matter (hyle), that’s paradoxical. This thesis contradicts to Platon’s theory about ideas (eidos) that are images in our mind. “The idea of a thing is a true cause of appearance of a concrete thing, made from some quite palpable material. The idea of a thing precedes the very thing, and no one thing can appear if there’s no its idea. Things are a result, consequence, embodiment of one or another idea, made up in some material” [1].

In my reasoning there’s probably a greater bias goes into creative comprehension of the reality. The human himself is demiurge. But the only thing in Platon’s theory I don’t agree with is to introduce such a notion as functionality of a thing, which is often determinative material for a thing to create. Any workbench is a table, too, but they make it from metal to increase its firmness. In this case the function of a thing is equal to its idea, “eidos”. But it’s difficult to believe in that the idea of a thing is enclosed in a form because a thing should be separated from another one. The function envelops not only a form, but also matter, “content” of a thing. Platon’s demiurge is right who joins all the objects, that’s he’s a function of things himself.

In conclusion I’d like to say, that I was come to this idea by the thought that any atom and any cell of organism are the whole world. Figuratively speaking, a cell of organism has no differences from the Universe.