Afterword. "SVETL BROOM" IN A. KHATYBOV'S "BATH SCHOOL" AND A LABOUR SPADE. BOOK 5.

Feodor Shkrudnev. "SVETL BROOM" IN A. KHATYBOV'S "BATH SCHOOL" AND A LABOUR SPADE. BOOK 5. 3 exist and what this existing should correspond to. These are all the truths in the world of moral and political ideas . Neither their formation, nor the desire to be improved and improve one’s lives could have arisen in Man if his knowledge was limited to the existing. Thus, between the three properties of knowledge: the correctness, truthfulness, and conformity with the object – there is such a relationship that the first determines the second, and the second determines the third; but not the other way around . Knowledge is true and correct not because it corresponds to the object; but it corresponds to the object because it is true, and it is true because it is correctly formed . Therefore, when the first property undoubtedly exists in the knowledge, the second always exists, too, and the third – when it can exist. As for the correctness of the knowledge formation, as already mentioned, it is in line with the NATURE of the COMPREHENDING MIND . All this, of course, should be investigated separately – in the Doctrine of Cognition . But out of the true knowledge, not everything should be accepted and studied today, but, in my opinion, only the knowledge that is directed to COMPREHENSION FORMATION . Nowadays many people believe that knowledge and comprehension are the same thing – if there is knowledge, there is also comprehension . But this is far from the case. Knowledge and comprehension vary in nature and origin. The first is limited to the simple awareness of the object’s existence; moreover, none of the questions that can be asked regarding this object are resolved and, as far as the pure knowledge is concerned, such questions are not even raised, since raising questions beyond the simple existence, and the desire to resolve them IS THE TRANSITION TO COMPREHENSION . The latter, however, contains the awareness that the existing cannot but exist; moreover, all the questions that can be proposed regarding the object are resolved. The first is limited by the external signs of the existing and the outward forms of the happening – those signs and forms which are attainable for the sensory organs , as Nicolai Levashov wrote about this in every detail – but this knowledge is superficial. The second reveals what lies under these external signs and forms and what produces them, that is, brings to understanding the internal nature and structure of the existing and internal process that occurs in phenomena – IT IS NOTABLE FOR ITS DEPTH . The first is fragmentary, incoherent : it does not combine various phenomena into one whole, inextricably fastened by an internal causal tie. The second is integral : it clearly sees individual phenomena in their mutual connection, as well as the whole, the parts of which make up these phenomena. Therefore, for the first – everything is random and inexplicable. For the second – everything is necessary and clear.