Principle of objectivity is aimed at ensuring a correct understanding of the nature of the relationship between subject and object in the process of cognition. It implies the need to ensure the identity of knowledge and the cognizable object, i.e. a reality that exists independently of human will and consciousness.

According to this principle, all human knowledge is understood as a reflection of an object. Moreover, in this knowledge the object appears in its subjective, ideal form, as an object in thinking. Of course, we are not talking about false, but about true knowledge.
The principle of objectivity makes the researcher aware of the need to abandon established, traditional, but outdated views on a particular subject. In addition, it requires abandoning personal preferences, likes and dislikes in the process of cognition, although this is sometimes difficult to do. This principle presupposes clarification in the process of cognition of the contradictory unity of the objective and subjective, the understanding that it is impossible to completely renounce the aspects of the subjective in our knowledge, the human in it, from the “presence” to one degree or another of the subject in the object. Based on this, modern science recognizes that all our knowledge is of an object-subject nature and contains a moment of relativity.

Systematic principle asserting that the whole world is a multitude of interconnected elements (objects, phenomena, processes, principles, views, theories) that form a certain integrity. Material systems are divided into physical, chemical, geological, other systems of inorganic nature and living systems in the form of individual organisms, populations, ecosystems. Social systems form a special class of material living systems.

There are also abstract systems - concepts, theories, scientific knowledge in general. Scientific research of various systems is carried out within the framework of a systems approach, in which systems are considered in all their diversity and unity.
The methodological requirements arising from this principle are as follows:

- structural-functional approach to research, involving the identification of the main elements of the object of study, the determination of the role of each of the elements, the establishment of subordination, the hierarchy of parts of the system being studied, as well as the study of those specific tasks and functions that this element performs in the system;

- systematic organization of the research process itself, combining epistemological, axiological and activity (praxeological) approaches to the study of a subject or process;

- usage as an essential tool of cognition typology technique, classification of those elements, parts that make up the object of study. With the help of this approach, internal connections between elements in systems are more fully established, and knowledge about it becomes more orderly.
It should be noted, however, that in modern philosophy criticism of “system-creating” thinking has intensified, when they first try to create a system and then squeeze reality into it, instead of objectively cognizing it. Such outstanding thinkers as Plato, Kant, Hegel, and Marx did not escape this dangerous temptation. In this regard, it is fair to note that quite often the most valuable thing in the teachings of great system builders is that which does not fit into their systems.
Principle of contradiction- a dialectical principle based on real contradictions of things and reduced to the following basic requirements:
identification of subject contradictions;

A comprehensive analysis of one of the opposite sides of this contradiction;

Exploring another opposite;

Consideration of the subject as a unity (synthesis) of opposites as a whole based on knowledge of each of them;

Determining the place of a contradiction in the system of other contradictions of the subject;

Tracing the stages of development of this contradiction;

Analysis of the mechanism for resolving a contradiction as a process as a result of its deployment and aggravation. Dialectical contradictions in thinking, which reflect real contradictions, must be distinguished from the so-called “logical” contradictions, which express confusion and inconsistency of thought and are prohibited by the laws of formal logic.

The principle of historicism- a way of studying phenomena in their occurrence and development, in their connection with specific conditions. Following this principle means considering historical phenomena in self-development, that is, it helps to establish the reasons for their origin, identify qualitative changes at various stages, and understand what this phenomenon has become in the course of dialectical development. This makes it possible to study any phenomenon from the moment of its occurrence and trace the entire process of its development in historical retrospect.

It involves the study of the past, taking into account the specific historical situation of the corresponding era, in the interrelation and interdependence of events, from the point of view of how, for what reasons, where and when this or that phenomenon arose, what path it took, what assessments were given to it at that time or another stage of development.

Development principle- one of the basic methodological principles of cognition . This principle recognizes the continuous change, transformation and development of all objects and phenomena of reality, their transition from one form and level to another. The fundamental nature of this principle led to the formation of a special section within philosophical knowledge - dialectics as a doctrine of movement, change and development of being and knowledge. As a source of movement and development, dialectics recognizes the formation and resolution of contradictions in the very essence of developing objects, i.e. development is understood by her as self-development.

Movement as a universal property of natural and social existence was already abolished by Heraclitus and other ancient philosophers. But the most complete and profound doctrine of development was created by the German philosopher G. Hegel.

The principle of development requires from the cognizing subject when studying all phenomena:

Apply the so-called procedural approach, which is also called historical or dialectical

When performing a procedural analysis of all phenomena, rely on the appropriate conceptual apparatus in the form of such basic terms as “process”, “functioning”, “change”, “development”, “progress”, “regression”, “evolution”, “revolution”, etc. .

Take into account the action of the basic laws of dialectics, such as development through the formation and resolution of internal contradictions, the action in development processes of mechanisms for the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, development through negation, etc.

In the course of development, the contradictory unity of the general and the individual, essence and phenomenon, form and content, necessity and chance, possibility and reality, etc.

The methodological meaning of dialectics is that, by establishing the mobility and variability of all objects and phenomena, it thereby strives to make our process of cognition the same.

Chapter 1. Fundamentals of system philosophy

Natural selection, which determined the entire prebiological and then biological stage of evolution, subjected not these or those polynucleotides capable of replication and even proteins - enzymes that did not arise under their influence, but entire phase-separated systems (probionts), and then primary living beings.. It was not the parts that determined the organization of the whole, but the whole in its development created the “expediency” of the structure of the parts.

(Academician A.I. Oparin)

1.1. Concept

The basis of system philosophy constitute the Law and the principle of systematic activity (Law and principle of consistency), Law and principles of development of activity potential (Law and principles of development), and method of systemic philosophy, which are for the first time evidence-based and formulated in . It also describes the experience of applying the method of systems philosophy for the science and practice of management, education, computer science, mathematics, ecology, sociology, economics, and shows its capabilities for any field of activity. The existing experience has shown that the use of the method of systems philosophy makes it possible to create methods for effectively solving problems of activity of any level, focus and scale. Everyone needs it. The application of the method of system philosophy to human-machine activity leads, in particular, to the construction and implementation of system technology of activity.

Tasks of system philosophy, as the methodological basis of activity, can be grouped as follows.

First class of problems systems philosophy: formulate and prove the general principle of systematicity (principle of systematic activity), justify the existence and formulate the general Law of systematicity (Law of systematic activity), develop a general model of purposeful activity, develop a general mathematical model of a system, classification of systems, model life cycle systems. For a systemic philosophy of a certain type of activity, develop applied ones: the principle and Law of systematicity, a model of purposeful activity, a mathematical model of a system, a classification of systems, a life cycle model.

Second class of problems systemic philosophy: to formulate and prove general principles of development (principles of development of activity potential), justify the existence and formulate the general Law of Development (Law of Development of Activity Potential), develop models of potential, resource and result (product, product) of activity. For a systemic philosophy of a certain type of activity, develop applied ones: principles for the development of activity potential, the Law of development of activity potential, a model of the potential and resource of activity, a model of the result of activity.

Third class of problems system philosophy; to develop general and applied methods of systemic philosophy of activity, allowing to create a systemic philosophy of a certain type of activity and methods for implementing this type of systemic activity in practice.

The complex of results of solving three classes of problems of systemic philosophy allows us to create a methodology for transforming any type of human activity into systemic activity. In particular, the system technology method is built on the basis of the general method of system philosophy for the purposes of designing and implementing any purposeful activity in the form of a complex of system technologies. Practice has shown the effectiveness of applying systemic philosophy on a large number of examples of constructing scientific theories and methods for solving problems of social practice.

In this chapter we will limit ourselves to presenting the main provisions of systemic philosophy in a form that allows us to solve the problems of this work. For a more in-depth study of systemic philosophy, you must use the work .

In the future we will use the terms “system philosophy of sustainable development”, “system philosophy of management”, “system philosophy of design”, “system philosophy of education”, “system philosophy of programming”, etc. At the same time, we will assume that the systemic philosophy of a certain type of human activity is a set of methodology and techniques for carrying out this activity, built on the basis of the method of systemic philosophy.

1.2. Law and principle of consistency

General principle For the sake of brevity, we will call the systemic nature of activity the principle of systematicity. Let's formulate principle of consistency in the form of the following set of statements:

A. To create and implement systemic activities, the object of this activity must be represented as a model of the general system.

b. To implement an activity, a subject of the activity is required.

V. The subject of systemic activity must be represented as a model of the general system.

d. The object and subject of systemic activity must be represented by one model of the overall system.

d. To achieve the goal of an activity, a result (product, product) of the activity is necessary.

e. The result of systemic activity must be represented by a model of the overall system.

and. The object and the result of system activity must be represented by one model of the overall system.

h. The object, subject and result of system activity must be represented by one model of the overall system.

The sequence of application of the components of the systematic principle constitutes a rule for implementing the systematic principle for a certain class of tasks, to achieve a certain goal, to solve a certain problem. Each component of the system principle can be used independently and at any stage of the system life cycle.

These statements are presented here without the evidence contained in . There, the existence of the Law of Systematic Activity, used for the purpose of constructing a system technology, was justified and a formula was developed. For convenience, we will briefly name the General Law of Systematic Activity The law of consistency.

Law of consistency Let's formulate it in the following form:

A) triad model rule. The triad “object, subject, result” of any activity is always implemented within the framework of a certain objectively existing general system. Each objectively existing general system can have a certain set of models accessible to humans. For the triad “object, subject, result”, one of these models is selected as the general model of the system, as the best for its activity in a given environment;

b) system model rule. Each system of the triad is implemented within the framework of a general system that objectively exists outside the triad. Each of these objectively existing systems may have a certain set of models accessible to humans; for the corresponding system of the triad (object, subject or result), one of these models is selected as the general model of the system, as the best one for participation in this triad;

V) rule of interaction between internal and external environments. Each system is a set of ways and means of implementing the ordered interaction of the internal environment of the system elements with the external environment of the system in accordance with the problem (goal, task) for the solution of which this system is formed; the triad of systems is considered as a system consisting of three elements - subject, object and result;

G) rule of expanding boundaries. The internal environment of the elements of the system (triad of systems) and the external environment of the system (triad of systems) mutually influence each other through channels located “beyond the boundaries” of the system (triad of systems); this circumstance forces the system (a triad of systems) to “expand its boundaries” to maintain its role in the environment;

d) permeability restriction rule. Any system (triad of systems) is a kind of “permeable shell”; through it, the mutual influence of the internal and external environments of the system is carried out “within the boundaries” of the system, both foreseen and unforeseen when creating the system; this circumstance forces the system to narrow its permeability to unforeseen mutual influences of the external and internal environments of the system (triad of systems), in order to maintain its role in the environment;

e) life cycle rule. The systems that make up the external and internal environments of systemic activity, as well as the systemic triad and each of its systems, can be at different stages of their life cycles - from conception to aging and withdrawal from the sphere of use (operation), regardless of the stage of implementation of systemic activity;

and) the rule of “reasonable egoism”. Each system pursues the goals of its own survival, preservation, and development, which differ from the goals for which the environment shapes the system. The goals of the system must be “selfish within reasonable limits.” This applies to all systems: both to the object, subject and result, and to the triad of systems, element of the system, general system, etc.; going beyond the limits of reasonable egoism leads to the destruction of the system due to the corresponding reaction of the environment;

h) rule of three triads. Any system is a result system, since it is a product of the activity of some system. Any system is a system-object, since it produces the products of its activity. Any system is a subject system, since it affects at least one other system. As a result, each system participates in no less than three triads of systems, the survival, preservation and development of which it needs.

1.3. Law and principles of development.

In systemic philosophy, the activities of a person or a human community, a group of people are considered as activities for survival, conservation and development complex human potential (human society). For the sake of brevity, we will assume in this section that survival and preservation are components of development; in cases where this does not cause misunderstandings, we will use the term “development” instead of the combination “survival, preservation, development.” Purposeful “DNIF-systems” (people) or purposeful “DNIF-systems of systems” (groups of people) carry out activities to develop their potential.

Art a team of people or one person to carry out activities in a highly organized manner in practice is described, in particular, by system technology (technology is the science of the art of carrying out activities, system technology is the science of the art of carrying out system activities). The transformation of activity processes into technologies (technologization) and into system technologies (system technologization) enhances a person’s ability to develop their potential. The Law of Technologization, which explains this process, is a component of the general Law of development of activity potential.

Let us formulate this law for DNIF systems. It follows quite obviously that for systems that do not have at least one type of potential of DNIF systems, the Law of Development of Activity Potential can be formulated in a particular form. Let us briefly name the law of development of activity potential Law of development and formulate, based on the results obtained in , in the following way:

A) rule of internal potential. The DNIF system has the internal potential for its own survival, preservation and development. For survival, it is necessary to maintain the internal potential of the DNIF system at a certain level; for preservation, it is necessary to develop the existing internal potential of the DNIF system to a higher level; for development - to create a qualitatively new internal potential of the DNIF system. The development of the DNIF system will be steadily progressive in terms of internal potential if the internal potential of each subsequent generation of the DNIF system is updated in comparison with the previous generation of the DNIF system;

b) rule of development harmony. Each new generation of the DNIF system must correspond to the standard of the DNIF system: a harmonious combination of the activities of spiritual, moral, intellectual, bodily systems, mental and physical health systems based on the priority of spirituality and morality. The development of the DNIF system will be sustainable in the sense of compliance with the standard if each new generation of the DNIF system corresponds to the standard of the DNIF system;

V) external potential rule. The DNIF system has “external potential” - the potential to influence the development of the environment in which it operates and of which it is a part. Due to the presence of this DNIF system in the environment, the environment itself is also a DNIF system. The influence of the external potential of the DNIF system under consideration may be insignificant for the environment, and can also lead to regressive or progressive development of the environment as a DNIF system. In this sense, the development of the DNIF system under consideration will be steadily progressive if each subsequent generation of the DNIF system under consideration increases the external potential for the progressive development of the environment as a DNIF system;

G) Law of technologization. To develop the potential of the DNIF system of humans and their habitat, technologization is necessary, i.e. transformation of creative processes accessible to a few into technologies accessible to everyone and possessing the properties of mass production, certainty, and effectiveness.

d) Law of non-decreasing diversity. Development of the potential of a DNIF system or any other system is possible only if diversity increases within one type or several types (or all types) of parts of the system - elements, processes, structures, other parts of the system; For the survival and preservation of the DNIF system or any other system, the diversity within the types of parts of the system should not decrease.

Development principles For the sake of brevity, we will call the potential of systemic activity principles of development. The set of development principles given below allows transformation and transfinition on the way to constructing a system of axioms that satisfies the requirements of consistency, independence, truth, interpretability, completeness, closedness, etc. All development principles are applicable to systems and triads of systems.

The principle of one-to-one correspondence “goal – process – structure”:

in the system, in order to achieve the goal of obtaining a result (the release of each product, the manufacture of a product), a process must be implemented that strictly corresponds to the goal, and also carried out using a uniquely defined structure; The functioning of the system is described by a variety of such correspondences, both those provided for during its creation and those that arose during the development process. In other words, the triad “goal - process - structure” should be described by one model of the overall system - a one-to-one correspondence model.

Flexibility principle:

in accordance with the requirements of the external and internal environments, the system must be able to optimally restructure, i.e. if necessary, move from one correspondence “goal - process - structure” to another with optimal (in the sense of a certain system of criteria) involvement of internal and external potential for restructuring the system.

The principle of non-degrading communications:

communications within systems and communications between systems in time (warehouse) and space (transport) should not degrade the potential of the system and its products or may degrade them within specified acceptable limits.

Principle of technological discipline:

firstly, there must be a technological regulation for using the potential of the system for each correspondence “goal - process - structure”, secondly, there must be control over compliance with the technological regulations and, thirdly, there must be a system for making changes to the technological regulations.

Enrichment principle:

Each element of the system (like the entire system) must add new beneficial features(and/or form, and/or condition) to a converted resource (object of labor), increasing the potential of the system and the product of its activity.

Principle of quality monitoring:

it is mandatory to establish criteria, monitor (analysis, assessment and forecast) the qualities of the system in the sense of these criteria; the qualities of all “goal – process – structure” correspondences in the system should be monitored.

Manufacturability principle:

Of all types of products (results, products) of the system that meet the goal set by the external or internal environment, the most “technological” one should be selected, i.e. ensuring the most effective (in the sense of the accepted efficiency criterion) use of the potential of a given system for the production of the selected product.

Typing principle:

each of the possible varieties of system objects: the variety of “goal-process-structure” correspondences, the variety of structures, the variety of processes, the variety of systems, triads of systems and the variety of products (products, results), should be reduced to a limited number of standard objects (correspondences, structures, processes, systems, triads of systems, products, results, products) that are reasonably different from each other.

Stabilization principle:

it is necessary to find and ensure the stability of such modes of all processes and such states of all structures of the system that ensure the most effective (in the sense of the accepted efficiency criterion) use of the system’s potential for the high-quality manufacture of a certain product of the system.

The principle of human release:

through the implementation of systems by machines, mechanisms, robots, automata, organisms, it is necessary to free a person for spiritual, moral and intellectual activity, for activities to develop his mental and physical health.

Principle of continuity:

the productivity of each system must correspond to the consumer capabilities of all components of the system’s external environment; The consumer capabilities of the system must correspond to the capabilities of the productive activities of all components of the external environment of the system.

Balance principle:

the total amount of any resource (as well as every known component of any resource) consumed by the system in a certain time must be equal to the total amount of this resource (component, respectively) received from the system into its external environment over the same time. This condition applies to the system as a whole, its parts and elements.

Eco-friendly principle:

the impact of technological, social, natural and other systems on each other should lead to the sustainable progressive development of each type of these systems and their totality.

Principle of coordinated development:

the development of the system and its components (elements, structures, processes) must correspond to the evolution of problems, intentions and goals of the external and internal environments, to achieve which the results of the functioning (products, items) of the system are needed; the development of the system should be based on the coordinated management of the system project and the projects of its external and internal environments.

1.4. Systemic philosophy method

Let us assume that there is some universal environment M, in which systems are created, function, and die.

Wednesday M contains people, groups of people pursuing certain goals, natural, energy, information and other potentials and resources, systems and waste products of systems, elements of systems, external and internal environments of systems and elements of systems. In the environment of M, various problems, intentions and goals constantly arise, are satisfied, and die out. To solve problems, realize intentions and achieve goals, certain products and products are needed. It should be noted that problems, as a rule, exist forever and from time to time they are updated if the results of their resolution cease to satisfy the environment M; this is what we mean when we talk about problems arising.

These products and products are the result of the activities of information, energy, industrial and other systems. Thus, for the purpose of satisfying physical hunger, food is needed - numerous results from the activities of industrial, agricultural or natural systems; in order to satisfy the hunger for information, information is needed in the form of the results of the activities of educational systems and the media; For the purpose of satisfying spiritual needs, for example, religion is necessary.

So, in general, if in an environment M a problem arises (spiritual, moral, education, housing, informational, material, financial, others), then in connection with this a system of goals is formed, the achievement of which allows us to resolve the problem. To achieve each of these goals, certain products, products, and results are required. In accordance with the decision made, the environment M allocates some object for the manufacture of an item (product); in this case, it is believed that the result of the object’s activity will ensure the achievement of a certain goal. To form, manage the functioning and manage the development of an object, the environment M allocates a certain subject of activity responsible for the functioning of the object and for the correspondence of the practical result of the object’s activity to the desired result for the environment M. Environment M, now the “external environment” in relation to the triad “object-subject-result”, imagines this triad on the basis of one model of a general system designed to obtain the desired result. On the other hand, the three components of the triad themselves have a common system-forming factor - a certain goal of obtaining a result that is needed by the environment M; the need for “joint” activity to achieve this goal leads to the need to act on the basis of one model of activity - on the basis of some model of a common system.

It should be noted that the goals of the functioning of the triad of systems themselves differ from the goal that initially arises in the M environment and leads to the creation of this triad. The goals of each of the triad systems are also qualitatively different from the goals of the triad and from the goals of the external environment. The interaction of these goals is carried out within the framework of the rule of “reasonable egoism” of the external environment, the triad of systems, each system of the triad, and elements of the systems. The rule of reasonable egoism, known in ethics, is interpreted in systems philosophy in relation to general systems.

We can conclude that in the M environment, through this triad, systemic activity is carried out, which must be built in accordance with the systemic philosophy of activity.

Method of systemic philosophy of activity considers any activity as a systemic activity that must be carried out triad of systems in accordance with principle and the Law of Systematicity, and also in accordance with principles and the Law of Development.

The method of systems philosophy considers a system of activity as a combination of process and structure. Process activity (system process) is the implementation of the system’s design in time; structure activity (system structure) is the implementation of the system’s concept in space.

The system (complete system) contains main system created to achieve the goal of a complete system and additional system created to provide communications in a complete system; any system contains main and additional processes, main and additional structures..

The elements of the systems are "elementary systems" containing basic and additional elementary systems. An elementary system combines an elementary process and an elementary structure; the elementary system contains the main and additional elementary processes, the main and additional elementary structures.

Any activity, from the standpoint of the method of systemic philosophy, is considered as a systemic combination of the following activity component: analysis, research, design, production, management, examination, permission (licensing), control, archive.

To model any activity in the form of a system, the method of systems philosophy contains generalized model of activity.

The method of systemic philosophy contains a mechanism for systemic research potentials and resources activities: human, natural, material, energy, financial, communication, real estate, machinery and equipment, information.

So, human potential is considered as complex, consisting of four types of potentials - spiritual, moral, intellectual, bodily. One of the most important subsystems of a person, as a complex and large DNIF system, is the subsystem of mental and physical health, containing spiritual, moral, intellectual and bodily potentials in the minimum acceptable volumes.

Information potential is considered, in particular, as containing two types of potentials: information-information and information-knowledge.

In addition, the method of systemic philosophy contains mathematical and other models common systems and elements of common systems, classification systems, model life cycle systems, model interaction with external and internal environments of the system, mechanism decomposition models of systems based on results on isomorphism of systems.

The method of systemic philosophy allows you to build scientific theories systems and practical projects of systems, which in our minds have completely different complexity and sizes - from cosmic to elementary. For each system, systemic philosophy builds its own scale of representation, “its own map,” and all of them become visible to humans with the help of the apparatus of systemic philosophy. Figuratively speaking, with the help of systemic philosophy they are brought to the “format of human imagination.”

All components of the systemic philosophy method are justified and described in . Here we present information about the method necessary for the purposes of this work.

Systematicity

Similar to space, time, movement, systematicity is a universal, integral property of matter, its attribute. Being a distinctive feature of material reality, consistency determines the importance of organization in the world over chaotic changes. The latter are not sharply isolated from formed formations, but are included in them and are ultimately subject to the action of gravitational, electromagnetic and other material forces, the action of general and particular laws. The lack of formalization of changes in one respect turns out to be orderliness in another. Organization is characteristic of matter at any of its spatiotemporal scales.

In the last decade, due to changes in astrophysics' ideas about galaxies and their relationships with their environment, the question of the large-scale structure of the Universe has become actively discussed. It has been suggested that the "single most important" statement about the large-scale structure of the Universe is that at the largest scales there is no structure at all. On the other hand, on smaller scales there is a wide variety of structures. These are clusters and superclusters of galaxies. This idea has some contradictions. Perhaps it is necessary to clarify the concepts, and above all the concept of structure. If we keep in mind only some structures of the macroworld or microworld, then perhaps the megaworld is “structureless”. Structurality is the internal fragmentation of material existence. And no matter how wide the range of the worldview of science is, it is constantly associated with the discovery of more and more new structural formations. If earlier the view of the Universe was limited to a galaxy, and then expanded to a system of galaxies, now the Metagalaxy is being studied, which is considered a special system with specific laws, external and internal interactions. The concept of structure has advanced to scales reaching up to 20 billion light years. We are not talking about a speculatively constructed structure (as, for example, in the case of the hypothesis of a “structureless Universe”), but about the systematic nature of the Universe, which is established by means of modern astrophysics. The most general considerations indicate the unfoundedness of this hypothesis: if the larger is devoid of structure, then the structure of the smaller cannot be accepted. The consequence should be agreement about the absence of structure of part of the same Universe, which this hypothesis is trying to avoid. It is also possible to have varying degrees of structure on certain scales and spheres of the Universe and to mistake for “structurelessness” the weakly expressed structure of relatively highly developed structural formations. Philosophical considerations and private scientific data speak in favor of the position that, in general, inorganic nature is a self-organizing system, consisting of interconnected and developing systems of various levels of organization, which has no beginning and end.

Structurally and on a microscopic scale, matter is infinite. Today, the quart model of hadron structure is receiving more and more confirmation, which leads to overcoming the idea of ​​the structurelessness of elementary particles (protons, neutrons, hyperons, etc.). This does not mean at all that the structural infinity of matter must be understood as the infinite divisibility of matter. Modern physics has reached a point where it is possible to interpret the question in a new way. For example, Academician M.A. Markov notes the difficulty associated with further extrapolation of the concept “consists of...” to the microworld. If a particle of small mass, he writes, is placed in a space with a very small volume, then, according to the Heisenberg inaccuracy relation, its kinetic energy will increase with a decrease in this area in such a way that with an unlimited decrease in this space, the kinetic energy of the particle, and therefore its total the mass will tend to infinity. Thus, it turns out that it is impossible to build an infinitely “small” structure of a given object of a given mass, trying to build it mechanically from particles of smaller masses that occupy ever smaller volumes in the structure of a given volume. The idea arose to build particles from more fundamental particles with large masses. The decrease in mass of the resulting system occurs due to strong interaction heavy particles that make up the system. Matter in all its scales has form-forming activity. There is no structureless matter.

But what is the system? From all the diversity, we will highlight the main definition, which is considered the most correct and simplest, which is important for the purpose of further studying this concept. This may be the definition given by one of the founders general theory systems L. Bertalanffy: a system is a complex of interacting elements.

In understanding what a system is, the meaning of the word “element” plays a major role. Without this, the definition itself can be considered banal, not containing significant heuristic value. The criterion property of an element comes down to its necessary and direct participation in the creation of the system: without it, that is, without any one element, the system cannot exist. An element is then an indecomposable component of the system for a given method of considering it. If, for example, we take the human body, then individual cells, molecules or atoms will not act as its elements; they will be the digestive system, circulatory and nervous systems, etc. (in relation to the “organism” system, it would be more accurate to call them subsystems). As for individual intracellular formations, they can be considered subsystems of cells, but not of the organism; in relation to the “organism” system, they are a component of its content, but not an element or a subsystem.

The concept of “subsystem” was developed for the analysis of self-developing, complexly organized systems, when between the system and elements there are “intermediate” complexes more complex than the elements, but less complex than the system itself. They combine various parts, elements of the system, which together are capable of executing a single program of the system. Being an element of the system, the subsystem, in turn, turns out to be a system in relation to the elements that make it up. The situation is exactly the same with the relationship between the concepts “system” and “element”: they transform into each other. In other words, the system and the element are relative. From this point of view, all matter appears as an infinite system of systems. “Systems” can be systems of relations, determinations, etc. Along with the idea of ​​the elements, the idea of ​​any system also includes the idea of ​​its structure. Structure is a set of stable relationships and connections between elements. This may include the general organization of elements, their spatial arrangement, connections between stages of development, etc. .

In terms of their importance for the system, the connections between the elements are not the same: some are insignificant, others are significant and natural. Structure is, first of all, the natural connections of elements. Among the natural ones, the most significant are considered to be integrating connections (or integrating structures), which determine the integration of the sides of the object. In the system of industrial relations, for example, there are connections of three kinds: related to forms of ownership, to distribution and to the exchange of activities.

All of them are natural and significant, despite the fact that property relations (otherwise forms of ownership) play an integrating role in these relations. The integrating structure represents the leading basis of the system.

The question arises - how can you determine the quality of a system - structures or elements? According to some philosophers, the quality of a system is determined primarily by the structure, relationships, and connections within the system. Representatives of the school of structural-functional analysis, led by T. Parsons, based the concept of society on “social actions” and focused attention on functional connections, their description, and identification of structural phenomena. At the same time, causal dependencies and substrate elements remained out of sight. In the field of linguistics, it is also possible to encounter a direction that absolutizes the role of structure in the genesis of the quality of systems.

For the purposes of research, it may be necessary to abstract from material elements for some time and focus on analyzing structures. However, it is one thing to temporarily distract from the material substrate, and quite another to absolutize this one-sidedness and build a holistic worldview on such a distraction.

Using a scientific and philosophical approach, it is possible to identify the dependence of systems on structures. An example of this is the phenomenon of isomerism in chemistry. The relative independence of structures from the nature of their substrate carriers (thus, electronic pulses, neutrons and mathematical symbols can be carriers of the same structure) also speaks in favor of the proposed position. One of the main methods of modern science - the method of cybernetic modeling - is based on the use of the property of identical structures, or isomorphism.

But no matter how relevant the role of structure is in determining the nature of the system, the first importance still belongs to the elements. This should mean the impossibility of generation by one or another set of elements that interact. The elements describe the very nature of communication within the system. That is, the nature and number of elements determine the way they are interconnected. Some elements determine one structure, others another. Elements are the material carrier of relationships and connections; they constitute the structure of the system. Thus, the quality of the system is determined, firstly, by the elements (their properties, nature, quantity) and, secondly, by the structure, i.e. their interaction, connection. There are no and cannot be “pure” structures in material systems, just as there cannot be “pure” elements. From this point of view, structuralism as a worldview is a one-sided, and therefore erroneous, vision of the world.

Description of work

The systems approach has received special attention in recent decades. The passion of enthusiasts of this trend, who played a significant role in deepening the understanding of the essence of systems and the heuristic role of the systems approach, was expressed, however, in the fact that this approach was absolutized and sometimes interpreted as a special and new global direction of scientific thought, despite the fact that its origins contained even in the ancient dialectic of the whole and its parts.

The concept of a system.
Systems approach.
Methodological structure of the systems approach.
Systematic principle.
Synergetic vision of the world.

Files: 1 file

Representatives of another direction in the development of a systems approach, designated here as “special scientific” and “scientific and practical”, associate the new needs of knowledge that give rise to the “system movement”, mainly with the specific needs of the scientific and technological revolution, mathematization, engineering and cybernation of science and production practice, development of new logical and methodological tools. The initial ideas of this direction were put forward by L. Bertalanffy, and then developed in the works of M. Mesarovich, L. Zade, R. Akoff, J. Clear, A.I. Uemov, Yu. A. Uemov, Yu. A. Urmantsev and others. On the same basis, various approaches to the construction of a general theory of systems have been proposed. Representatives of this direction declare that their teaching is not philosophical, but “special scientific,” and in accordance with this they develop their own conceptual apparatus (different from traditional philosophical forms).

The difference and contrast of these positions should not be particularly confusing. Indeed, as will be seen later, both concepts work quite successfully, revealing the subject from different sides and in different aspects, both of them are needed to explain reality, and the progress of modern scientific knowledge urgently requires their interactions and a certain methodological synthesis.

There are two types of systems approach: philosophical and non-philosophical.

The difference between two types of systems approach - general theoretical and scientific-practical - captures the essence of their differences as concepts, one of which has predominantly an ideological, philosophical knowledge base, and the other - a special scientific and scientific-practical one. This is important to note again because each such direction has its own structure of basic concepts, laws, theories, and in this sense, its own “prism of vision” of reality. However, dialectics teaches us that it is not enough to understand the differences between phenomena; we must also understand their unity. Accordingly, operating these differences as mutually exclusive opposites, regardless of this epistemological need, would be erroneous. So, for example, the very absolute “inclusion” of any ideas in philosophy and the absolute “exclusion” from it are relative. Once upon a time in ancient times, philosophy - the first form of theoretical knowledge - covered almost all the knowledge that existed at that time. Gradually the expanded and differentiated spheres of study of natural phenomena, and then also social, moral and psychological knowledge, became completely isolated. In our century, one of the oldest branches of philosophy - logic, in alliance with mathematics, natural and technical sciences, gives birth to “non-philosophical logic”.

On the other hand, in philosophy, reverse processes have always occurred and are occurring - philosophy in its own way assimilates “non-philosophy,” for example, art, religion, natural science, social science, etc., and accordingly develops special sections of specific philosophical knowledge. As a result, aesthetics appears as a philosophical theory of art, philosophical questions of natural science, philosophical problems of law, philosophy of science, etc. Moreover, processes of this kind have happened and are always happening. Thus, the opposition between philosophical and non-philosophical movements is in a certain sense very relative, and this is important to keep in mind. Today in the structure of philosophy one can find such areas of research as philosophical problems of cybernetics, information theory, astronautics, technical sciences, global problems of world development, etc.

In general, the interaction of philosophy with non-philosophical spheres of knowledge is a normal and constantly occurring process. And in fact, with this “metabolism” three processes occur simultaneously:

The field of philosophical research is expanding in accordance with the general expansion of the sphere of scientific knowledge;

Philosophical understanding of knowledge of new branches of science helps them formulate their theories more strictly methodologically and ideologically;

As a result, the interaction of philosophical science with natural science, social science and technology improves, and their very necessary union is strengthened.

This process sometimes goes more, sometimes less smoothly and fruitfully, but it is necessary for both sides, since philosophy in specific sciences has its own cognitive factual basis, and specific sciences in philosophy have its own general theoretical and general methodological basis: the theory of knowledge and general concepts of worldview and methodology . So, apparently, the difference between the two directions of the systems approach should not be categorically defined as the difference between “philosophical” and “non-philosophical” knowledge, because each of them ultimately has its own philosophical content.

The systems approach today is one of the active components of the process of scientific knowledge. Systemic representations and methodological tools meet the needs of modern qualitative analysis, reveal patterns of integration, and participate in the construction of a multi-level and multidimensional picture of reality; they play a significant role in the synthesis and integration of scientific knowledge. It is difficult to unambiguously determine the essence and content of the systems approach - all of the above constitute its various features. But if you still try to identify the core of the systems approach, its most important facets, then perhaps these should be considered the qualitative-integral and multidimensional dimensions of reality. Indeed, the study of an object as a whole, as a system, always has as its central task the disclosure of what makes it a system and constitutes its systemic qualities, its integral properties and patterns. These are the laws of system formation (integration of parts into the whole), system laws of the whole itself (integral basic laws of its structure, functioning and development). At the same time, the entire study of complexity problems is based on a systemic multi-level and multi-dimensional understanding of reality, which gives a real overall picture of the determinants of the phenomenon, its interaction with the conditions of existence, “inclusion” and “fitness” in them.

In addition, it should be noted that the use of systems methodology techniques in practice contributes to: a better solution to the problems of balance and complexity in national economy, systematic prediction of the consequences of world global development, improvement of long-term planning, wider use of advanced methodological achievements to increase the efficiency of all our creative activities.

Methodological structure of the systems approach

Modern systems research, or, as it is sometimes said, the modern systems movement, is an essential component of science, technology and various forms of practical activity of the present time. System movement is one of the important aspects of the modern scientific and technological revolution. Almost all scientific and technical disciplines are involved; it equally affects scientific research and practical development; under its influence, methods for solving global problems are being developed, etc. Being interdisciplinary in nature, modern systems research itself represents a complex hierarchical structure, including both extremely abstract, purely theoretical and philosophical-methodological components, and numerous practical applications. To date, a situation has developed with the study of the philosophical foundations of systemic research, in which, on the one hand, there is unity among Marxist philosophers in recognizing materialist dialectics as the philosophical basis of systemic research, and on the other hand, there is a striking disagreement in the opinions of Western specialists about the philosophical foundations of the general theory systems, systems approach and systems analysis. In one of the published last years The analytical review “System Movement” gives a fairly adequate picture of the state of affairs in this area: almost no one doubts the importance of this area of ​​systemic research, but everyone who works in it deals only with his own concept, without caring about its connection with others concepts. Mutual understanding between specialists is significantly hampered by terminological inconsistency, the obvious lack of rigor in the use of key concepts, etc. This state of affairs, of course, cannot be considered satisfactory, and efforts must be made to overcome this problem.

Systematic principle

The property of systematicity in literature is usually contrasted with the property of summation, which underlies the philosophical concepts of elementarism, atomism, mechanism and similar ones. At the same time, the structures of the functioning and development of system objects are not identical to the models of integrity proposed by supporters of vitalism, holism, emergentism, organicism, etc. Systematicity turns out to be, as it were, concluded between these two poles, and elucidation of its philosophical foundations presupposes a clear fixation of the relationship of systematicity, on the one hand, to the pole, so to speak, of mechanism, and on the other hand, to the pole, so to speak, of teleo-holism, where, along with The properties of integrity especially emphasize the purposefulness of the behavior of the corresponding objects. The main solutions to philosophical problems associated with the dichotomy of the whole and parts, with determining the source of development of systems and methods of knowing them, form three fundamental philosophical approaches. The first of them - let's call it elementalist - recognizes the primacy of elements (parts) over the whole, sees the source of development of objects (systems) in the action of objects external to the object in question, and considers only methods of analysis as a way of understanding the world. Historically, the elementalist approach appeared in various forms, each of which, based on the indicated general characteristics of elementarism, gives them one or another specification. Thus, in the case of the atomistic approach, the main attention is paid to the identification of objectively indivisible atoms (“building blocks”) of the universe; in mechanism, the idea of ​​reductionism dominates - reducing any levels of reality to the action of the laws of mechanics, etc.

The second fundamental philosophical approach - it is advisable to call it holistic - is based on the recognition of the primacy of the whole over the parts, sees the source of development in some holistic, as a rule, ideal factors and recognizes the primacy of synthetic methods of comprehending objects over methods of their analysis. There is a wide variety of shades of holism - from openly idealistic vitalism, the holism of J. Smuts, which is not much different from it, to the completely respectable scientific concepts of emergentism and organicism. In the case of emergentism, the uniqueness of various levels of reality and their irreducibility to lower levels is emphasized. Organicism is, figuratively speaking, reductionism in reverse: the lower forms of reality are endowed with the properties of living organisms. The fundamental difficulty of any variants of holism lies in the lack of a scientific solution to the question of the source of development of systems. This difficulty can only be overcome in the philosophical principle of systematicity.

The third fundamental philosophical approach is the philosophical principle of systematicity. It affirms the primacy of the whole over the parts, but at the same time emphasizes the interconnection of the whole and parts, expressed, in particular, in the hierarchical structure of the world. The source of development is interpreted here as self-motion - the result of the unity and struggle of opposite sides, aspects of any object in the world. The condition for adequate knowledge is the unity of methods of analysis and synthesis, understood in this case in accordance with their strictly rationalistic (and not intuitionistic) interpretation. A certain aspect of the philosophical principle of systematicity is dialectically interpreted structuralism. The essence of the principle of consistency can be reduced to the following provisions:

1. The holistic nature of objects of the external world and objects of knowledge.

2. The relationship of the elements of any object (subject) and this object with many other objects.

3. Dynamic nature of any object.

4. The functioning and development of any object as a result of interaction with its environment with the primacy of the internal laws of the object (its self-motion) over external ones.

Understood in this way, the principle of systematicity is an essential side or aspect of dialectics. And it is on the path of further specification, and not on the path of constructing a special systemic philosophy that stands above all other philosophical concepts, that we should expect future progress in understanding the philosophical foundations and philosophical meaning of systemic research. Along this path, it becomes possible to clarify the methodological structure of the systems approach. So, let's consider the methodological structure of the systems approach in the form of the following diagram:

S= .

Let us reveal the content of this scheme, keeping in mind that we will simultaneously talk about the essential features of the system as an object of study (we will denote it by S) and the methodological requirements of the systems approach (in this case we will also denote it by S). The most essential feature of a system is its integrity (W), and the first requirement of the systems approach is to consider the analyzed object as a whole. In the most general form, this means that an object has integral properties that are not reducible to the sum of the properties of its elements. The task of the systems approach is to find means of fixing and studying such integral properties of systems, and the proposed methodological structure of the systems approach is built precisely in such a way as to solve such an essentially synthetic problem.

This, however, can only be done by using the entire arsenal of currently available analytical tools. Therefore, our scheme includes many divisions of the system under study into elements (M). It is important that we are talking specifically about the set of divisions (for example, scientific knowledge into sets of concepts, statements, theories, etc.) with the establishment of relationships between them. Each division of the system into elements reveals a certain aspect of the system, and only their multitude, together with the fulfillment of other methodological requirements of the systems approach, can reveal the holistic nature of the systems. The requirement to carry out a certain set of divisions of a system object into elements means that for any system we will be dealing with a certain set of its different descriptions. Establishing connections between these descriptions is a synthetic procedure, which thus completes the analytical activity of determining and studying the elemental composition of the object of interest to us.

To implement such unity of analysis and synthesis, we need the following:

Firstly, in conducting traditional studies of properties (P), relationships (R) and connections (a) of a given system with other systems, as well as with its subsystems, parts, elements;

Secondly, in establishing the structure (organization) of the system (Str (Org)) and its hierarchical structure (ier). Moreover, the first type of research is mainly analytical, and the second is synthetic in nature.

When establishing the structure (organization) of a system, we fix its invariant nature in relation to the qualitative features of its constituent elements, as well as its orderliness. The hierarchical structure of a system means that a system can be an element of a higher-level system, and, in turn, an element of a given system can be a lower-level system.