Three Seas Economic Journal

67

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020

Corresponding author:
1 Central Ukrainian National Technical University, Ukraine.
E-mail: omlevchenko@ukr.net
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5452-7420
2 Central Ukrainian National Technical University, Ukraine.
E-mail: abosultan711@gmail.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4524-7360

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30525/2661-5150/2020-4-10

CLASSICAL PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS 
OF FUNDAMENTAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH’ 

INSTITUTIONALIZATION IN COGNITIVE SOCIETY 
Oleksandr Levchenko1, Al-Ghazali Ameen Saif Ali2

Abstract. The subject of publication is the theoretical generalization of the philosophical foundations of fundamental 
scientific research (FSR). The stages of institutionalization of attitude to the FSR are considered, from the stage 
of critical discussion of the conditions for obtaining true knowledge of the Hellenistic period to the developed 
system of teaching about the transcendental logic of Kant and Hegel’s logical teaching about being, essence 
and concept in the context of fundamental scientific research. The methodology is based on generalization of the 
most radical points of view and approaches of representatives of different philosophical schools and research 
programs to clarify the essence and ways of FSR. The causes and gnoseological origins of the FSR scientific method 
change to the modern form of the method of verification toleration of scientific theories of post-positivism and 
metapositivism (Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn, Feyerabend) are described. As a result of the study, it was concluded that 
the period of radical rethinking of the classical paradigm of fundamental theoretical research, which is set out in 
the teachings of researchers of the ancient period, the New Time, classical German, Marxist philosophy, has started. 
Instead of the deterministic method of scientific thinking, the verification logic of substantiation of the process of 
generating new knowledge (line Descartes&Pascal), the method of verification toleration/refutation of Popper is 
adopted by scientists. At the same time, the justification for the truth of the FSR is based on the development of 
Descartes’ teachings about the method. The applied result of the practical application of the Popper’s concept in 
the field of FSR implementation is a deliberately probabilized style of scientific cognition, the principle of verifying 
the intermediate interpretation of the truth, updating practical approaches to demarcation procedures, justifying 
the partial and permissible value of scientific theories as “points of invariability” in the continuum of continuous 
inaccuracy and uncertainty (Hume/Berkeley vs. Bacon/Newton line).

Key words: fundamental science research, cognitive society, philosophical foundation of FSR, verification of science 
theories and knowledge.

JEL Classification: A11, I20, I23

1. Introduction 
Accelerated and emphasized saturation with high-

tech elements of dominant technological processes, 
further improvement of the level and quality of 
collective and personal well-being of stakeholders of 
clustered innovatively oriented ecosystems is objectively 
associated with the transformation of the FSR from 
a kind of peripheral elitist activity into a main focus of 
development of postmodern cognitive society.

The subject of publication is the theoretical 
generalization of the philosophical foundations of  
FSR . The stages of institutionalization of attitude 
to the FSR are considered, from the stage of critical 

discussion of the conditions for obtaining true 
knowledge of the Hellenistic period to the developed 
system of teaching about the transcendental logic of 
Kant and Hegel’s logical teaching about being, essence 
and concept in the context of fundamental scientific 
research. 

2. Methodology
The research is based on generalization the most 

radical points of view and approaches of representatives 
of different philosophical schools and research 
programs to clarify the essence and ways of fundamental 
scientific research (FSR). The period of generalizations 



Three Seas Economic Journal

68

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020
includes a period of time from ancient times to the 
middle of the twentieth century and consistently 
represents the views of the authors of the Hellenism 
era, the New Time, the heyday of classical philosophy 
to the era of empiriocritism and the Vienna School of 
Neopositivism. The scientific origins of the emergence 
of modern theories of critical rationalism as a general 
theory of the FSR , acceleration and dynamics of growth 
not subject to inflation of scientific knowledge, critical 
empirism as a stage of development of logical empirism 
are investigated. The causes and gnoseological origins of 
the FSR scientific method change to the modern form 
of the method of verification toleration of scientific 
theories of post-positivism and metapositionivism 
(Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn, Feyerabend) are described.

3. Results
The ancient period of FSR is associated with the 

introduction of the practice of critical discussion of 
conditions for obtaining true knowledge with the 
central problem of passive relation between compulsory, 
stable, objective knowledge (in compulsory unity with 
its subject) and problematic knowledge, including 
correct, as well as illusory, false, unreliable, truth and 
delusion. The absence of a fundamental logical contrast 
between the subject and the object of cognitive activity 
is associated with the fact that the theory of cognition 
(TC) exists for ancient thinkers only in connection with 
the task of constructing a picture of space.

Basic understanding of the essence of knowledge 
was state by Πλάτων (Plato) (427/429-347 p. BC) 
in his conception ἀνάμνησις (anamnesis) – recalling, 
ascent to knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge of the 
world of ideas by an intelligent part of the soul when 
perceiving objects of the sensual world, which differs 
from υπομνησις (hypommnesis) – a simple mention, 
reflection, an voice of truth in the soul embodied in the 
human body, written recording of external impressions 
(Serezhnikov, 1936). The knowledge of the “visible” 
(εἶδος), as opposed to the idea itself (ιδέα), is a form 
of spiritual and cognitive reflection of the natural 
connections-relations of the outside world, which is 
aimed at its transformation, is interpreted Πλάτων as 
the ἀνάμνησις celestial homeland of souls, where they 
are perceive any of them directly, face to face, while after 
resettlement in the rough earthly reality they remained 
only (πομνησις of the ideal world, difficult with the 
ὑπόθεσις darkness and gravity of matter. 

The doctrine of the idea provides the principle 
ὑπόθεσις (hypothesis) – “position at the heart” – 
related to the “meaningful prerequisite”, “basis”, “basic 
principle”, “foundation”, the basis of the meaningful 
existence of the thing and its structure (Plato, 1965). 
The put forward concept included the need for 
a certain practice of the soul, its care for itself, the use 
of “memory without a sign”, the gathering in indivisive 

unity from the scattered world of sensations, its trains 
and entertainment, its direct presence in the truth, its 
improvement and accumulation. Such actions allow to 
solve the paradox of the transition from ignorance to 
knowledge, and the solution was that in reality there 
is no absolute ignorance, there is only a deceptive 
ignorance of oblivion, which is ready to wake up to 
memory or roll down to even greater ignorance and 
oblivion. Due to the attraction of memory, there is an 
initial retreat from direct discretion, it becomes the key 
not to the imaginary, but to the real ignorance of the 
truth, a retreat from pure and impurity-free knowledge. 

Dialectics for Πλάτων consists in the discretion of 
the very principle of sciences, “giving and demanding 
content” for sensual things, separating one into disparate, 
building disparate to a single, structural representation 
of the whole as a single-separate plurality, overcoming 
any dualism. Pure, true knowledge is the result of 
a dialogical search for αρχή, the principle of every thing, 
in which everything possible, is provided, so that αρχή 
acts as a semantic method of existence, contains the 
whole plan of this latter structurally and one-separately. 
In the Πλάτων of the book, dialectic – the doctrine of 
unity of opposites, the search for the principle of each 
thing, obtaining true knowledge about it – can be 
presented as follows:
− dialectics, entering the sphere of confusing things, 
dismembers them so that each of them receives its own 
content – ἰδέα;
− ἰδέα things are taken as its principle, ὑπόθεσις, logos 
(λόγος) subordination to the general subordination of 
private entities to it, the law (νομός), which leads from 
scattered sensuality to an orderly idea and vice versa; − 
dialectics consists in establishing imaginary grounds, a 
priori categories, forms representing an objective and 
meaningful reflection of the real reality of the existence 
of things;
− chain “logic – idea – hypothesis – basis” dialectics 
perceives as the boundary of sensual and material 
formation of things, which in compressed form contains 
its “deployment”, acts as a plan, structure, content of 
existence; 
− dialectics as the “broom of sciences” is both discourse 
(consists in logical dismemberment) and intuitive 
(consists in the merger of the content), cognitive 
teaching about indivisible integrity, synthesis of the 
boundaries of discrete (immobile) parts of a particular 
thing and the unlimitedness of its holistic idea, unlike 
other sciences that only “dream”, collectively sees the 
essence of things “in reality”; 
− dialectics is not just the ability to have a conversation, 
ask and answer, among the sad disputes to find and 
practically apply the truth, how much the ability to 
develop ὑπόθεσις dialectically, think logically, receive a 
searchable object in a dismembered, unicorn, structural 
form, is to transform knowledge in the most true way 
that everything else becomes “secondary and later”.



Three Seas Economic Journal

69

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020
The method of dialogueal cognition of the of 

things, which Πλάτων associated with Σωκράτης  
(470/469-399 BC) (Politis, 2006), implemented 
in the process of resolving παράδοξος – a paradox, 
a contradiction that arises in theory, provided that it 
adheres to the logical correctness of the reasoning. 
Μαιευτική, as the main antinomian technique ἔλεγχος 
(élenchos, test), Σωκράτης provides for the ironic 
realization of the cathartic (κάθαρσις) ἀπορία by one 
of the parties to the dialogue in order to implement 
the zetic (ζΉτησισ) ἀπορία, a dichothomy that results 
in the “birth” of truth by the other party of (scientific) 
dialogue.

In the process of cognition, Ἀριστοτέλης  
(384-322 BC) distinguishes different degrees: practical 
skills, skill, action according to the pattern (τέχνη); 
quick and effective situational thinking (φρόνησις) 
about what contributes to actions about things 
that are good or bad for humans; science; wisdom 
(Σοφία) – intelligent ability in creativity, a special idea 
or embodied knowledge about the causes and sources, 
the degree of knowledge of the world around us in 
the context of the desire for deepening as a specific  
property of human intelligence; mind (νοῦς) –  
productive force of knowledge, generalization of all 
meaningful, intelligent and mental patterns that prevail 
in space and man. In the doctrine of fundamental 
knowledge, he distinguishes “dialectic” and “apodictic” 
varieties. The first is related to the sphere of isostenic 
judgments, which may be one or the other. Apodictic 
knowledge is true. At the same time, experience is 
not the last instance to justify higher links of science. 
Only the mind directly sees the higher references and 
their truth. At the same time, the general principles 
of contemplative knowledge are not born to humans, 
although they are potentially in the form of an 
opportunity to be acquired as a result of human’s mental 
activity. In order to truly acquire them, one should 
gather facts, direct an opinion to them, and thus invoke 
the process of mental contemplation of higher truths or 
references for such contemplation, scientific definition 
of the subject of research. A complete definition 
of the essence of a thing can only be achieved by 
combining deduction and induction: first, knowledge 
of each individual property must be acquired in an 
experience way; secondly, the belief that this trait is 
essential must be proved by the condition of a special 
form – categorical syllogism (Lukasiewicz, 1959) of its 
historically first, logical theory of deduction. The three 
terms of syllogism – four reasons (material, formal, 
action, final), consequence and carrier of the cause – 
Ἀριστοτέλης in “Ἀναλυτικὰ πρότερα” (Aristotle, 2004), 
“Ἀναλυτικὰ ὑστερα” (Aristotle, 1853) considers as 
the central part of the logical doctrine of “Organon”, 
and the basic principle of syllogism considers the 
relationship between a family, a species and a unitary 
thing. The systematized unity of the logical theories of 

its predecessors Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος, Δημόκριτος, 
Σωκράτης, Πλάτων – was supplemented by the theories 
of proof (συλλογισμός – reasoning consisting of three 
simple at attribute expresses – two founders (larger and 
smaller) and one conclusion, figures and modusas), 
presentation (τόπος – topiary, technique of spatial 
organization of thinking and understanding, as well as 
organized on the basis of thought space), etc. For the  
first time in the history of thinking, scientists were 
classified forms of movement – the emergence, 
destruction, qualitative change, increase, decrease, 
movement. Since there is no single predicate, a holistic 
concept to which all other concepts can be summarized, 
very different concepts, the Ἀριστοτέλης faces the task 
of listing all the higher genera – the categories to which 
other genera of the existing are reduced (Αριστοτέλης, 
2011). The list of these highest concepts, which use 
the tools of knowledge of the deep essence of things, 
includes the essence, quantity, quality, attitude, place, 
time, position, inherentness, action and subject to it.

Development of the theory of cognition in the new 
time (Yeshchenko, Koval, Tsvirko, 2019; Baklanova, 
Petrova, Koval, 2020), which was associated with the 
search for absolutely reliable knowledge, updating the 
paradigm of the FSR during the 17th-18th centuries, 
was explained by the fact that at that time the first roles 
were the need to limit the substantiation of the entire set 
of accumulated knowledge, their assessment according 
to the degree of truth. 

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), who implements a hand-
crafted plan “Great Instauration” (“Instauratio Magna”), 
divides all its varieties according to the three abilities that 
are inherent in the human mind. Memory contributes 
to the realization of history, imagination allows you 
to engage in poetry, mental abilities are the source of 
philosophy. Nature is learned directly, God is learned 
through nature, man is learned through reflection. In 
addition to these partial sciences, Bacon refers to the field 
of the desired “first philosophy” (desiderata), which has 
an attitude to all concepts suitable for use in all fields of 
knowledge. The most important at the same time is the 
science of nature, which is also divided into theoretical, 
which explores the causes (physics and metaphysics), 
and practical, which brings results (mechanics that 
on a practical level correspond to physics and natural 
magic – metaphysics). The logical method of “true 
guidance”, interpretation of nature, discoveries and 
inventions based on a systematic experiment, the 
scientist contrasts with deductions (unprofitable for 
obtaining new truths), as well as primitive induction 
(simple list of random signs). Scientist considers the 
true reasons for the “delusion of reason” is “ghosts” 
of the human race (distorted reflection of things due 
to the fact that man mixes with their own nature); 
caves (individual characteristics of man); market 
(misunderstanding of words); theater (false pupils who 
lure a person like theatrical performances). 



Three Seas Economic Journal

70

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020
In “New Organon” (Bacon, 1620) there is a  

distinction between experiments on “fruiting” and 
“light-bearing” experiments. The former rush to the 
nearest results and ignore the realization of causes as 
the only source of true power of man. “Light-bearing” 
experiments, which do not benefit themselves, 
contribute to the discovery of causes / axioms, 
can become a source of new practical discoveries / 
inventions. Developing the line of Δημόκριτος, Bacon 
tries to find in the things of others, materialistic,  
full internal activity of the world its atomic structure 
in order to solve the main task of science – to “change 
the “nature” of bodies and “promote the well-being of 
people”. The scientist is convinced that matter “seems  
to smile with its ethical-sensual brilliance to all 
mankind”. At the same time, following Ἀριστοτέλης, 
inductively exploring the fundamental “forms” –  
entities, bases, laws of formation of this property,  
Bacon carries out their construction to a certain 
configuration and movement of small material particles 
that form the body. The researcher distinguishes 
between 19 qualitatively different varieties of the 
movement of matter, thereby proving that the specific 
task of true induction is to find forms that “help” the 
mind. The above-mentioned purpose should be to serve 
the tables of presence, absence and degrees proposed  
by him, which determine the specific ways of taking  
into account the studied qualities in certain subjects  
of this class. Comparison of tables should contribute 
to the establishment of just such a feature, which is 
necessary associated with the quality under study, 
causes it, makes its form. Filling tables, picking up 
examples, knowing the mass of facts Bacon considered 
the most important task of modern science. Conclusion 
on the basis of the proposed methodology “Natural and 
Experimental History” was to serve as a separate part of 
the grand plan of the “Great Instauration” of sciences.

Renatus Cartesius, Descartes (1596-1650) together 
with Bacon sees the ultimate goal of FSR in human 
domination over the forces of nature, discovery and 
invention of technical means, knowledge of causes 
and actions, improvement of human nature itself. 
Without finding a universal method, the initial thesis, 
Descartes questions the truth of the generally accepted 
knowledge covering all its species. Dual rationalism 
based on the ambivalence of ideal and material, as well 
as protracted (le extensa) and thinking (res cogitans) 
substances, initiated by the scientist, its mechanics as 
a counterweight to animism and vitalism (Thomas 
Hobbes line (1588–1679) – Julien Offray de La Mettrie 
(1709-1751) – Paul-Henri Thiry, baron d’Holbach 
(1723-1789)), σκεπτικός (philosophical skepticism) 
(line of Πύρρων (360-275 BC) – Michel de Montaigne 
(1533-1592) – Pierre Charron (1541-1603)), formed 
under the influence of observation of the logical 
the nature of mathematical knowledge as absolutely 
reliable, comprehensive and necessary, one that flows 

from the nature of the intellect itself. The set of these 
considerations, combined with the search for perfect 
accuracy in the process of forming an unshakable, 
unquestionable truth, provided for the possibility and 
necessity of overcoming certain false qualities and 
signs of empiricism (gives rise to the truth approximate 
and relative) and, at the same time, mysticism (boasts 
super-sense, super-irrational knowledge). The 
exclusive role in the process of cognition was given 
to deduction – reasoning, which relies on absolutely 
reliable initial provisions – axioms and consists of  
a chain of reliable logical conclusions (Koval et al.,  
2019). Directly obvious initial provisions – intuition –  
have advantages over deduction considerations. 
Therefore, armed with probable means of 
thinking – intuition and deduction, the mind is able  
to achieve complete authenticity in all areas of 
knowledge, provided that it will use the true method. 
According to Descartes, the true or rationalistic method 
of scientific research must meet four requirements:
− firstly, to assume only such provisions as true, which 
are clear and obvious, that is, do not cause doubts  
(si clairement et si distinction);
− secondly, dismemberment of each complex problem 
(difficultes) into constituent parts; 
− thirdly, methodical transition (pensées) from known 
and proven to unknown and unprodexperied; 
− fourthly, no omissions in logical research chains, 
compilation of lists and reviews (revues) (Descartes, 
2018). 

Descartes resents syllogism as a source of new 
knowledge, considers it a means of organizing truths 
already known otherwise. The combination of 
previously obtained truths in the researcher’s mind is 
not seen as a mechanistic condition, but is a synthesis, 
a priori act of creativity. At the same time, in the 
process of developing a scientific picture of the world, 
the “temporary dwelling” for the researcher should be 
morality, for which their rules are displayed (maximes): 
obey the laws and customs in which he was brought 
up; be constant (constamment) in your decision and 
not wander from side to side; change yourself, not the 
“order of the world” (l’órdre du monde).

The translational institutional formation of the 
FSR in the philosophy of the New Time is associated 
with the overcoming of  (Benedictus de 
Spinoza) (1632-1677) cartesian dualism of material 
and spiritual substances (Spinoza, 1957). According to 
this doctrine, the dependence of a person’s thinking on 
his bodily condition is manifested at the stage of sensory 
knowledge. In the course of the latter, the first kind of 
knowledge is formed – discretion (opinio), which can 
be contrasted with understanding (intellectio), not only 
as a single source of reliable truths, but as the second 
kind of cognition consisting of awareness (ratio) and 
intelligence (intellectus). Achieving adequate truths is 
only possible at this stage. The third kind of cognition 



Three Seas Economic Journal

71

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020
is intuition (intuitio), a real foundation of reliable 
knowledge. This kind of knowledge 
associates with the teachings of mystical pantheism 
about “inner light” and Descartes’ teachings about 
the axioms of the “clear and expressive mind” as the 
foundation of all knowledge. Intuition is intellectual, so 
it ensures the knowledge of things in terms of eternity, 
as a necessary moduls of a single substance. 

Representative of English empiricism John Locke 
(1632-1704) argued that the material of knowledge 
for the soul (tabula rasa) are simple ideas (sensations 
and reflections), all of which come from a sensational, 
personal sensual experience (Locke, 2002). Complex 
ideas have the following design: a) the concepts/first 
qualities contained in things consist of simple through 
their comparison, combination, abstraction, measured 
quantitatively, exist objectively; b) secondary qualities 
are not contained in the items attached to the idea  
of the substance due to subjective perceptions;  
c) the relationship between different ideas; d) modus, 
mental designs. The main property of the mind is the 
ability to test ideas for quality. Distinguishing between 
three elements of cognition – intuitive, demonstrative, 
sensational – confidence in knowledge is recognized 
as the highest for the first, the lowest – for the latter. 
The limitations of knowledge are compensated by the 
possibility of providence by which God rewarded man. 

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646-1716) 
emphasized that rational foundations of the FSR 
should rely on the methodology, the most important 
requirements of which were the versatility and 
severity of philosophical discretions (Leibniz, 
2017). The innate ability of the mind to know ideas 
and truths is given not in finished form, but only as 
a “predisposition”, a deposit. In addition, unlike Locke, 
Leibniz acknowledged the essential importance of 
probabilistic knowledge, introduced division by 
a special role in knowledge into the necessary “truths 
of the mind” and random “truths of fact”. A priori, 
independent of sensory experience, the principles of 
being, the scientist declared:
1) inconsistency of any possible/imaginable existence 
(law of contradiction); 
2) logical primate of the possible before the actual/
existing one; possibility of infinite set of non-
contradicting “worlds”; 
3) sufficient justification of the fact that this particular 
world exists, and not any other of the possible events, 
that this event takes place, and not another (the law of 
sufficient justification); 
4) optimality (completeness) of this world as a sufficient 
justification for its existence. 

The physical world by Leibniz considered the 
unfinished sensual reflection of the true world of 
monads – indiviolable elements of being, which are 
among themselves in a relationship of “pre-established 
harmony”, as a phenomenon of a person who learns 

the objective world. But, given the fact that physical 
phenomena are generated by real, the scientist 
considered the first “well-grounded” means of space, 
matter, time, mass, movement, causality, interaction, 
as they were understood by physicists and mechanics 
of that time. In logic, Leibniz developed the doctrine 
of analysis and synthesis, formulated the law of 
identity (principum identitatis) – one of the basic laws 
of thinking as a cognitive activity, which expresses 
the need to allocate each subject of thought in such 
a way that it can be operated as identical to itself in the 
processes of thinking, defined by the permanence of 
meanings of words.

Julien Offray de La Mettrie (1709-1751) denied 
dualism and proved the existence of only one 
material substance, primitive and lifelong, which 
constantly changes the forms of its existence. La 
Mettrie’s materialism was to assert that the ability to 
feel, remember, and think does not contain signs of 
a supernatural and mystical, simple property of the 
human body. If the mind accumulates knowledge, 
for which nature has created all the conditions, then 
thanks to their brain is filled with ideas. The aggressive 
denial of Descartes’ dualism and John Locke’s idealistic 
provisions about the inner soul experience, reflection, 
embodied La Mettrie in anti-agnosticism, material 
sensualism, radically defending the view that feelings are 
not only images of objects, but also a criterion of truth 
(La Mettrie & Hunauld, 2018). For the development 
of ideas FSR important are the ethical views of the 
scientist, as well as his utilitarianism. Decisive role in the 
development of society, he attributes enlightenment, 
conscious activity of individual prominent personalities, 
denies the existence of unchanging absolute moral 
values, protects the ideas of hedonism and Eudemonism 
in their balanced, rational understanding. His aesthetic 
concept is directed against austerity, the instillation of 
personality rights.

The subject of research of peculiarities of functioning 
of the FSR sphere by the founder of classical German 
philosophy Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) during the 
“precritical” (until 1770) period of its activity was 
the possibility of contemplative knowledge of things 
as they exist on their own. It was in the discourse of 
scientific exploration of this period regarding the 
development of nature that it substantiated the cosmos 
hypothesis about the formation of a planetary system 
from the original “nebula” (Kant, 2018), a diffuse 
substance with a gradual transformation to the current 
state in accordance with the laws discovered by 
Isaak Newton, which, according to Friedrich Engels  
(1820-1895), “... shaken by the idea that nature has no 
history in time..” (Marx & Engels, 1960). Immanuel 
Kant’s most significant scientific achievement was 
the substantiation of the worldview of the idea of 
development in inorganic and organic nature, which 
was later extended to special sections of natural  



Three Seas Economic Journal

72

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020
sciences with the assistance of Johann Gottfried  
Herder (1744-1803) and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph 
Schelling (1755-1854). In philosophical writings, the 
scientist moved away from the previously declared 
rationalistic views, according to which the real 
connection between the two facts can be derived from 
the logical connection of two concepts, which became 
the basis for the transition from the “precritical” period 
to the works of the critical. 

The peculiarity of the critical period in terms of 
the formation of postulates of FSR development was 
the development of the author’s line for obtaining 
true knowledge. The originality of Immanuel Kant’s 
gnoseological position was that he finds a compromise 
between empirics (only experience can be a source 
of comprehensive and necessary knowledge) and 
rationalists (only the mind can be the source of 
comprehensive and necessary knowledge). The 
scientist claims that the source of true knowledge 
is independent of experience and preceding it 
a priori forms of sensuality and intelligence. Since, 
he has criticized the study of boundaries to which 
the possibilities of the mind are stretched, as well 
as other possibilities and forms of cognition. The 
scholasticism of the author’s approach is that the 
essence – “the thing in itself ” – cannot be given in the 
experience. Only phenomena – “things for us” that 
exist regardless of feelings, perceptions and forms of 
prudent thinking are available to knowledge. Entities 
affect our senses, affificate (Affïzierung) sensations. 
External affixing (affection externa), contemplation is 
associated with sensuality, which “gives” us objects, 
as well as receptiveness, as a result, contrasts with the 
spontaneity of discretion. Internal affiliation (affection 
interne) is manifested in the fact that people from 
the inside are influenced by themselves as intelligent 
beings, who, moreover, know themselves only as 
a phenomenon – non-essence.

Direct to understanding the essence of the FSR 
has the logical teaching of Kant, which distinguishes 
between two different varieties of logic: 
– accidental, general (allgemeine Logik), capable of 
giving objective comprehensive and reliable, but formal 
knowledge within the experience of the phenomenon 
of the phenomenon “things for us”, explores the 
relationship of different concepts, judgments and 
conditions of forms, without distracting from the 
question of what they think; 
– transcendental (transzendentale Logik), which 
differently weighs the forms of thinking and their 
competence depending on the direction on the subject, 
designed to compare the essence of “the thing within 
itself ”, which is beyond experience, a creative means of 
obtaining contradictory knowledge, which in case of 
an attempt to confirm the theoretical reliability with 
the need falls into contradictions, because it explores 
in the forms of thinking what gives the knowledge of 

an a priori nature, operates with the peculiarities of 
synthesis in the third category of the two previous 
opposing categories within each of their four  
categories – quantity (the only – set – wholeness), 
quality (reality – denial – limitations), attitude 
(substance – reason – interaction) and modality 
(possibility – reality – necessity) (Kant, 1994;  
Kant, 2000). 

The reflection of objective characteristics of reality 
in the consciousness is manifested in the form of 
formulated judgments – the relationship between 
concepts in the analytical (does not give new, but 
only reveals in the predication the knowledge already 
contained in its subject) or synthetic (arises from the 
combination of knowledge contained in the predication 
with the knowledge contained in the subject) varieties. 
In turn, synthetic knowledge is divided into a posterior 
(the predicate’s connection with the subject is based 
on experience) and a priori (the relationship between 
the subject and the predicate is thought as a predicate 
experience and does not depend on it). Based only in 
the a priori knowledge of the relationship of concepts 
can be universal and unconditionally necessary, 
Kant formulated questions about the sources and 
boundaries of reliable knowledge as a question about 
the possibilities of a priori synthetic judgments in each 
of its important varieties for the author (mathematics, 
theoretical natural science, metaphysicism). Solving 
the main issues of “Critics of the pure mind” is seen by 
their author in the study of the peculiarities of the use 
of a priori forms of cognition: sensuality as a capacity 
for sensation (“Transcendental Aesthetics”); prudence 
as the ability to concepts and judgments of the special 
as subordinate to the general (“Transcendental Logic”); 
the mind as a conditioned approach to the formulation 
of ideas as concepts of unconditional integrity of all 
conditioned phenomena (“Transcendental Dialectics”) 
(Kant, 2000). Transcendental everything that lies on 
the other side of any possible experience is accepted, 
otherwise it is beyond the control even for the 
transcendental.

For real knowledge to arise, it is necessary to synthesize 
sensual contemplation with categories of discretion. 
The highest condition for the synthesis of the variety 
of sense content and the prudent forms covered by this 
content is the unity of our consciousness, the a priori 
“unity of transcendental apperception”. Another link 
between sensory contemplation and discretion is the 
“productive power of imagination”. The combination 
of these conditions makes it possible to scientific 
knowledge, which has an objective meaning, that is, 
logical signs of generality and necessity. Regardless of 
the peculiarities of the ratio of objects and phenomena 
to each other, scientific knowledge can be carried out 
only if the discretion thinks them, subject to three higher 
fundamentals of knowledge – the law of conservation of 
the substance; law of causality and the law of interaction 



Three Seas Economic Journal

73

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020
of substances. These general and necessary laws do 
not belong to the nature that exists regardless of them, 
but only to the mind as the highest a priori laws of 
communication of all that discretion can think of. 
Thus, consciousness itself builds an object – not in the 
understanding of the real origin of its existence, but in 
what gives the recognizable, unknown in its essence the 
form under which it can only and can be understood – 
a form of general and necessary knowledge. That is, the 
things of nature are consistent with the forms of the 
mind, and not vice versa. The mind finds and is able 
to find in nature only what he has invested in it and 
regardless of it, that is, general and necessary forms of 
experience. Therefore, nature, as a subject of knowledge, 
is built by consciousness. The subject of any science that 
is built by consciousness on the part of the logical form of 
knowledge is subjective idealism, and therefore agnostic 
things are how they exist on their own. However, while 
Kant does not put a boundary on empirical knowledge 
of things, claiming that “... observation and analysis 
penetrate into the insides of nature, and it is not known 
how far we will go along the way over time”, the “thing 
in ourselves” will always remain on the other side of any 
possible experience for us. 

In full accordance with the categories of 
a priori judgments, the objective idealist Kant develops 
sketches of real natural sciences: “foronomy” – about 
spatial changes; “dynamics” – about moving forces; 
“mechanics” – the doctrine of the laws of interaction 
of moving bodies; “phenomenology” – about the 
possibility, reality and necessity of movement depending 
on the differences in the way of representation. 

In the process of exploring the third possibility 
of cognition in the field of formulation of a priori 
theoretical judgments in metaphysics, i.e. theoretical 
philosophy, Kant considers the mind as a conditioned 
ability, leading to the emergence of ideas – concepts of 
unconditional, subjects of which cannot be perceived 
by feelings in experience. Trying to find unconditional 
integrity, unity of conditioned phenomena, the mind 
must form three ideas: the idea of the soul as the 
unconditional integrity of all conditioned mental 
phenomena (the subject of psychology); the idea of the 
world as an unconditional integrity of an infinite series 
of causal phenomena (the subject of cosmology); the 
idea of God as an unconditional cause of all conditioned 
phenomena (the subject of teleology). Kant’s guess 
about the need for antinomy – opposite and at the same 
time logically evidence-based ideas about objects in the 
human sense, led to further recognition that they express 
not only the subjective, but also objective dialectic of 
thinking, as well as being.

The founding ideas of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 
Hegel, which may be involved in clarifying the deep 
essence of the FSR , are set out in his “Phenomenology 
of the Spirit” (Hegel, 2019). In the paper, the author 
argues in the opinion that the gender of philosophical 

knowledge has the form of a translational movement 
of consciousness from the first direct contrast between 
it and the subject, to absolute knowledge. Along the 
way, there is a overcoming distance from direct sensual 
authenticity to philosophical knowledge. 

The first section of the work examines the categories of 
consciousness, self-consciousness, mind, and considers 
the movement of individual consciousness from sensual 
authenticity to knowledge of reasonable reality. In the 
first phase (meaningal, empirical stage of cognition), 
consciousness knows neither its nature nor the essence 
of the subject. In the second phase, consciousness cools 
down its own social nature and rises to an understanding 
of the content of history as a collective activity of 
individuals. In the third, last phase, the spirit, giving 
a retrospective look at all the stages of history, rises to 
absolute knowledge. 

The central category of “Spirit Phenomenology” is 
alienation (Entausserung , Entfremdung), which Hegel 
understands as the emergence of all subjectivity from 
the spirit, firstly, the origin of the absolute spirit of 
nature and society; secondly, any complex relationship 
between the subject and the object, expedient activity 
on the disposal of human essential forces; thirdly, 
people’s distorted perception of products of their own 
activities, the idea of them as hostile, alien forces living 
on their own, rule over them. 

The analysis of “phenomenological knowledge”, 
“what appears”, becomes the basis for Hegel to 
assert – the most profound idea of all things is an 
absolute idea that develops on the principle of the 
Johann Gottlieb Fichte triad “thesis – antithesis – 
synthesis” (Oizerman, 1962) in three main forms of 
a holistic system: in the form of pure logical entities 
(logic); in the form of ino-existence of the idea – 
nature (philosophy of nature); in various forms of 
a particular spirit (philosophy of spirit). 

The subject of logic, which makes up the basis, the 
essence of all activities, is its own absolute idea, which 
unfolds its moments in the form of categories. Pure 
logical entities are a demiurge, a primary substance in 
relation to reality. Logical categories are comprehensively 
related, one that goes into each other, so in the dialectic 
development of categories the real dialectic of “things” 
is “guessed”.

Logical doctrine, the main concepts of which can 
be the basis of FSR in cognitive society, Hegel lays out 
the doctrine of being, about the essence and concepts 
(Hegel, 1929; Hegel, 1934; Hegel, 1937). 

Analysis of problems of cognition theory regarding 
the features of the FSR in the philosophy of the 
twentieth century is characterized by a number of 
features. Marxist current of philosophy one of its 
sources declared classical German. 

The fundamental difference between dialectic 
materialism (Marx-Engels line) from gnoseological 
idealism in matters of development of the theory of 



Three Seas Economic Journal

74

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020
cognition, which is directly related to the organization 
of the FSR , is observed in the following elements: 
− the material world is recognizable, the objective 
reality exists outside and regardless of consciousness, in 
general the world is gnostic; 
− the dialectic materialism considers ontological and 
gnoseological aspects of philosophical problems in their 
unity – dialectics, logic and theory of cognition are the 
only ones; 
− the essence and nature of knowledge are social in 
nature and cannot be understood in isolation from 
subject-practical activities; 
− the confrontation to idealistic and metaphysically 
interpreted sensationalism is declared, the irredience 
of real cognition to simple summation or mechanistic 
transformation of sensational data is emphasized;
– empirical data operated by science are formed in the 
process of using theoretical provisions to describe the 
content of sensory experience and involves a number of 
theoretical idealizations that should simultaneously be 
understood as a moment of active practical sensual and 
subjective activity; 
– theoretical thinking is guided by the reproduction 
of the object of cognition by ascent techniques from 
abstract to specific, inextricably linked with the 
principles of unity of logical and historical, analysis and 
synthesis; 
– categories and laws of materialistic dialectics are not 
only forming of reflection of objective reality, but also 
methodological principles of scientific and theoretical 
activity; 
– cognitive process is considered not so much in the 
form in which the individual is carried out in the head, 
so much in the form of a socio-historical process of 
knowledge development; 
– use of the dialectical-materialistic principle of 
Historicism is combined with the recognition of the 
specific historical nature of the basics of knowledge, is 
a means of overcoming Gnoséological relativism, the 
development of the doctrine of the dialectic of absolute 
and relative truth; 
– social practice acts as the basis, the purpose of 
knowledge, the criterion of truth; 
– theory of cognition ≠ the theory of reflection, the 
process of cognition proceeds not in the form of passive 
monitoring from the outside of these objects, but in the 
form of a number of ideal actions organized into the 
system, operations that form some ideal objects that 
serve as a means for cognitive assimilation, reflection of 
the objective world; 
– the process of human reflection is inextricably linked 
with the processes of material and ideal creativity; 
– theory of cognition is not metha-science, theoretical 
and cognitive interpreting of science begins where 
theoretical structures are interpreted in terms of 
correspondence of reality, truth, ability to grant the 
status of existence to used abstract objects, to evaluate 

as analytical or synthetic statements of this scientific 
sphere;
– gnoseological interpreting of specific scientific 
theories acts, on the one hand, as the application of 
general principles of cognition theory to the analysis of 
specific cases, on the other – as a kind of assimilation 
of new scientific results for clarification, sometimes 
viewing some common gnoseological postulates. 
Development may require a new gnoseological 
interpretation of scientific theories (Marx, 1955; 
Engels, 1955a; Engels, 1955b; Marx & Engels, 1960a; 
Marx & Engels, 1960b; Lenin, 1972).

4. Discussion
The current stage of formation of the foundations 

of the FSR implementation, on the one hand, is 
associated with a radical revision of the classical 
paradigm of fundamental theoretical research, which 
is set out in the teachings of researchers of the ancient 
period, the New Time, classical German, Marxist 
philosophy. Instead of deterministic method of 
scientific thinking, verification logic of substantiation 
of the process of generating new knowledge (line 
Descartes and Pascal), scientists adopt the method  
of verification toleration/refutation of Popper. The 
theoretical basis of Popper’s teachings is (i) positivism 
(Saint-Simon, Comte, Mill, Spencer), (ii) empirical 
criticism (Mach, Avenarius, Pearson, Duhem), (iii) 
neopositivism (Vienna School, philosophy of logical 
analysis), (iv) post-positivism (Quine, Armstrong, 
Rorty, Feyerabend). At the same time, the justification 
for the truth of the FSR is based on the further 
rapid development of Descartes’ classical teaching 
about the method. According to the position of this 
scientist, the analysis is used to discover the truth, 
and synthesis – to transmit it to others. The need 
to use clear rules to formulate definitions, axioms, 
conduct evidence, justify the research method in 
a narrow sense of the term remains unchanged. 
In addition, there is a further development of the 
method of searching for grammatical, logical and 
metaphysical arguments of evidence. Therefore, 
naturally, the continuation and development of the 
classical theoretical bases of the FSR implementation, 
at the same time, as an applied result of the practical 
application of post-positivist concepts in the field of 
FSR implementation, consciously probabilistic style 
of scientific cognition, the principle of verifying the 
intermediate interpretation of the truth, belonging of 
statements about it to empirical science and denying 
the suitability of the use of deterministic method of 
thinking, metaphysics, psychoanalysis and individual 
psychology to the procedure of demarcation, 
substantiation of partial and acceptable scientific value 
of theories as “inviolable points” in the continuum of 
continuous inaccuracy and uncertainty.



Three Seas Economic Journal

75

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020

5. Conclusion 
The prospects for further exploration are seen in 

an in-depth study of the possibilities of deploying 
creative potential, which are created using modern 
approaches to the implementation of the FSR . The 
metapositivist stage of FSR institutionalization is 
realized in the field of neo-Kantian “pure gnoseology” 
and its recognition of philosophy with the theory of 
cognition (Bogomolov, 1969); critics of this approach 
from the camp of transcendental phenomenologists-
ontologists (Husserl, 1994), empirical psychologists 
(Frank, 2007); representatives of the conglomerate 
of idealistic empiricalism and ontology – empirical 
critics, English neo-realists, “sensibulists”, American 
neo-realists ( James & Russel, 2010; Bogomolov, 
1962); linguistic analysts (Gryaznova, 1993); adepts 
of the line “positivism (Narsky, 1961) – neopositivism 

of scenic logical positivism (Ayer, 1959; Achinstein & 
Barker, 1969) – linguistic philosophy (Charlesworth, 
1959) – logical pragmatism of the change of truth 
(instrumentalism, fallibism, anti-realism, radical 
empirism, verifiationism) ( James & Russel, 2010; 
Dewey, 2001) – post-positivism” (Panin, 1981; Carnap, 
1971), as well as the implementation of applied theories 
of changing scientific paradigms and reproduction 
of competing theories (Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn, 
Feyerabend).

Acknowledgement
The paper was supported by Erasmus+ Project 

№ 609944-EPP-1-2019-1-LT-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP 
“Enhancing Capacity of Universities to Initiate and to 
Participate in Clusters Development on Innovation and 
Sustainability Principles”

References:
Achinstein, P., & Barker, S. F. (1969). The Legacy of Logical Positivism: Studies in the Philosophy of Science.  
Johns Hopkins Press, 300 p.
Aristotle (1853). Ἀναλυτικὰ ὑστερα The Organon, Or Logical Treatises, by Owen, O.F. (Literally translated, with 
notes, syllogistic examples, analysis, and introduction). London: Henry G. Bohn. Internet archive. 
Aristotle (2004). Ἀναλυτικὰ πρότερα Prior Analytics, Jenkinson, A. J. (Trans.). Wayback Machine. 
Αριστοτέλης (2011). Έργα Ι Κατηγορίαι Categories. About interpretation. Protoporia. 
Ayer, A. (Ed.) (1959). Logical positivism. issuu.com. 
Bacon, F. (1620). Novum Organum The New Organon or True Directions Concerning the Interpretation of Nature. 
metaphysicspirit.com. 
Bogomolov, A. S. (1962). Philosophy of Anglo-American Neorealism. Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 448 p. 
Baklanova, O., Petrova, M., & Koval, V. (2020). Institutional Transmission in Economic Development.  
Ikonomicheski Izsledvania, 29(1), 68–91.
Bogomolov, A.S. (1969). German bourgeois philosophy after 1865. Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 448 p. (in Russian)
Carnap, R . (1971). Philosophical Foundations of Physics. Introduction to the philosophy of science. Moscow: Progress, 
390 p. (in Russian)
Charlesworth, M. J. (1959). Philosophy and Linguistic Analysis. Pittsburg: Duquesne University, 234 p.
Descartes, R . (2018). Discourse on the method. Moscow: Azbuka, 320 p. 
Dewey, J. (2001). Reconstruction in Philosophy. Zanadvorov, M., Shikov, M. (Trans). Moscow: Logos, 94 p. 
Engels, F. (1955). Anti-Duhring. in: Marx, K., Engels, F. Collected Works, 2nd ed., v. 20. 
Engels, F. (1955). Dialectics of Nature”, in: Marx, K., Engels, F. Collected Works, 2nd ed., v. 20. 
Frank, F. (2007). Philosophy of Science: Communication between Science and Philosophy, ed. 2nd, Kursanov, G. A. 
(Trans.). Moscow: Izdatelstvo LK. 
Gryaznova, A. F. (Ed.) (1993). Analytical philosophy: Selected texts. Moscow: Izd-vo MGU, 191 p.
Hegel, G. V. F. (1929). Collected Works. In 14 volumes. Vol. 1. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoye izdatelstvo politicheskoy 
literatury.
Hegel, G. V. F. (1934). Collected Works. In 14 volumes. Vol. 2. Moscow: Sotsekgiz.
Hegel, G. V. F. (1937). Collected Works. In 14 volumes. Vol. 5. Moscow: Sotsekgiz.
Hegel, G. W. F. (2019). Phenomenology of spirit, Tarashchuk, P. (Trans.). Kyiv: Folio, 476 p. (in Ukrainian)
Husserl, E. (1994). Philosophy as a strict science. Novocherkassk: Saguna, 357 p. (in Russian)
James, W., & Russell, B. (2010). Introduction to Philosophy. Philosophy problems. Moscow: Republic, 318 p. (in Russian)
Kant, I. (1994). Critique of the ability to judge. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 367 p. (in Russian)
Kant, I. (2000). Critique of pure reason, Burkovsky, I. (Trans.). Kyiv: Universe, 504 p. (in Ukrainian)
Kant, I. (2018). Prolegomeny to every future metaphysics, which may appear as a science, Terletsky, V. (Trans.).  
Kharkiv: Folio, 288 p. (in Ukrainian)
Koval, V., Duginets, G., Plekhanova, O., Antonov, A., & Petrova, M. (2019). On the supranational and 
national level of global value chain management. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(4), 1922–1937.  
http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2019.6.4(27)



Three Seas Economic Journal

76

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020
La Mettrie, J. O. de, & Hunauld, F. J. (2018). Histoire Naturell de Láme. Wentworth Press, Paris, 372 p. 
Leibniz, G. V. (2017). Monadology, Bartusyak, P. (Trans.), Khoma, O. (Ed.).: Café Philosophique, Lviv. issuu. 
Available at: https://issuu.com/twtdt/docs/monadologie (accessed 12 September 2020).
Lenin, V. I. (1972). On the meaning of militant materialism. Moscow: Politizdat, 16 p. (in Russian)
Locke, J. (2002). Exploration of human understanding, Bordukova, N. (Trans.). In 4 books. Vol. 1. books.google.com. 
Available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=LvZJjAX1xAYC&pg=PA5&hl=uk&source=gbs_selected_
pages&cad (accessed 25 September 2020).
Lukasiewicz, J. (1959). Aristotelian syllogistics from the point of view of modern formal logic. Moscow: Izdatelstvo 
inostrannoy literatury, 312 p. (in Russian)
Marx, K. (1955). Theses on Feuerbach. in: Marx, K., Engels, F. Collected Works, 2nd ed., v. 3. www.marxists.org. 
Available at: https://www.marxists.org/russkij/marx/cw/t3.pdf (accessed 14 October 2020).
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1960). Works, 2nd ed., vol. 2. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoye izdatelstvo politicheskoy 
literatury, p. 143. (in Russian)
Narsky, I. S. (1961). Modern positivism. Moscow: AS SSSR , 423 p. (in Russian)
Oizerman, T. I. (1962). Fichte’s philosophy. Moscow: Znaniye, 47 p. (in Russian)
Panin, A. V. (1981). Dialectical materialism and post-positivism (a critical analysis of some modern bourgeois concepts  
of science). Moscow: Izd-vo MGU, 240 p. (in Russian)
Plato (1965). Selected dialogues, Asmus, V. (Comp.); Egunov, A. (Ed. trans.); Soloviev, V. S. and others (Trans.). 
Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 442 p. (in Russian)
Politis, V. (2006). “Aporia and Searching in Early Plato”. Judson L. & Karasmanis V. (Eds.). Remembering Socrates: 
Philosophical Essays. academia.edu
Serezhnikov, V. K. (1936). Plato. Theetetus, Serezhnikov, V.K. (Trans.), Vandek V.M. (Ed.). Sotsekgiz, Moskow-
Leningrad, 192 p. 
Spinoza, B. (1957). Selected works: in 2 volumes, vol. 1. Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 631 p. 
Yeshchenko, M., Koval, V., & Tsvirko, O. (2019). Economic policy priorities of the income regulation. Espacios,  
40(38), 11.