The main problem of the development of philosophical knowledge

There are many special sciences, each of which is a unified and developing system of scientific knowledge. But nothing like this is possible to say neither about the systemic unity of existing philosophical knowledge, nor about its development over the past two millennia. Today there are dozens of different philosophies and hundreds of separate philosophical theories, which not only little complement each other, but most of all contradict. You might think that each philosophy has its own subject area, although the World (this term is written with a capital letter, since it means the Universe) is the same for all philosophies. This means that today there can be no question of any systemic unity of knowledge belonging to all available versions of the science of philosophy. The only reason for such an aggregate state of philosophical knowledge lies only in the fact that it contains a lot of falsehood. The main thing is that all the falsity in philosophies does not disappear anywhere, but quietly exists along with the true positions, being an unnecessary ballast. That is why, due to the really existing disunity of philosophical knowledge, each philosophy has its own vocabulary. And this is bad, because the term is a kind of " Trojan horse", which covertly denotes all the meanings in which it was used ever before.

Systemic knowledge differs from aggregate knowledge in the same way that a stone building differs from a pile of bricks. (This was said by F. Bacon. ) Philosophers understand this well, but none of them has yet created a complete, systematic and true philosophy. So far, only this philosophy is the first of all existing ones, which has managed to systematically, sufficiently fully and truly explore the existing World. Both the building and the philosophical knowledge should be a single systemic whole. But all the available philosophical knowledge is not at all one strict and systemic scientific building, subordinate to one project. Today it is nothing more than the " Babylonian the Tower of philosophy ”. The builders of this tower speak their own languages ​ ​ (lexicons). But if two people in a conversation understand the same term in completely different ways, then such a conversation is usually called absurdity (conversation of the deaf).

Philosophy practically stopped in its development, and this happened not today, but more than two thousand years ago. For example, the definition of matter given by Aristotle is completely true, but Marxist philosophy for some reason defines it falsely through consciousness.

Aristotle's definitions of time and space are true. But Marxist philosophy took from Einstein the false idea of ​ ​ space-time. But in reality there is no such entity, which is called " space-time".

Quality and quantity in Aristotle have precise definitions, and in Marxist philosophy they are ridiculous.

But why don't we collect in one scientific knowledge only the truths of different philosophers? Truths do not contradict each other in principle. Moreover, not just collect, but collect them into a system in the same way as the objects of these truths are connected or correlated in reality. To do this, you just need to separate the truths existing in philosophy from falsehood. Which is not at all difficult to do, given that the truths of such objects are fundamentally incapable of contradicting each other, but they always contradict falsehood. Moreover, truths and different subjects never contradict each other. In addition, the criteria of truths are only the facts and objects of these facts corresponding to them. This is quite enough. All of these methods are reliable tools for detecting falsehood.

But these methods are completely unacceptable for modern philosophers, since then they will have to answer for their own falsity. Therefore, they all refer not to facts, but to other people's opinions. This is very convenient, because it seems that then only the author of the opinion remains guilty. Here it is necessary to change the " rules of the game": if he repeated someone else's lie, then he is a liar himself. Otherwise, nothing will change. And opinion, even the most true, is not at all a criterion of truth, since no opinion is stronger than fact. The greatest harm to truths is brought about by false consolidated (ingrained, generally accepted) opinions. In other words, stereotypes.

The problem of the truth of knowledge is the most acute today. Given the abundance of falsehood in science, its solution is required first of all. Moreover, its solution lies literally on the surface of experience.

Each truth is specific. This is a unit of experience. It necessarily has as its primary source only a certain definite state of its object. Its criterion (a reliable object of comparison) is only the fact of this state. The truth is only the representation of the fact of the state of its object in the form of a written-speech position, which to a high degree corresponds to its source. The fact is unchanged - its truth is unchanged. From this it is not difficult to understand that truth is the correspondence of this written-speech position to its fact.

  Compliance is quality. It always has a degree from 1 (completely true) to 0 (false), so that truth and falsehood about the same thing is already an irreconcilable contradiction.   

Truth must be constant. It is not true when it is not the same today as it was yesterday. Just as a fact is absolutely unchangeable, otherwise it is not a fact, as the state of the source of truth is practically invariable, otherwise it is not a state, but a process, so the truth must be absolutely unchanged, otherwise it is not true. And nothing more.