First conquer with thought, then in fact.

A.V. Suvorov. The Science of Conquer.

…thinking means posing questions
and trying to answer them.

V. Rubtsov

To which three forms of activity can thinking be divided?

As it is seen from the diagram ‘Kinds (aspects, sides) of human activity’ (see next page), thinking combines on the ideal, psychic level three forms of activity: cognition, artistic and managing and transforming. It consequently does not come to one of these forms of activity. By the way among philosophers and scientists rather widespread is the concept of thinking as cognitive activity. From my point of view this is onesided and therefore not true treatment of thinking. Between thinking and cognition there is an essential difference and not only in that cognition includes in it also perceptive forms of reflection. Thinking participates on an egalitarian degree as well cognitive as managing and transforming activities, that is, these are ideal tools of cognition and managing and transforming. The latter are counterpositioned of their direction. Cognition is mainly reflecting activity, substantiating transfer of material to ideal plan (desobjectivization). In cognition the subject tries to divide that which is divided in the object and combine what is combined in the object. On the contrary, managing and transforming activity materializes the ‘transfer’ ideal to material plan (inobjectivization). In this activity subject tries to divide what is combined and combine what is divided.

Above is a diagram (structure scheme) of thinking. On the diagram in graphical and logical form is presented the mutual relationships of the three different properties of thinking. Between reasoning and mind the temporary ‘space’ of thinking is placed, divided by vertical lines. In this ‘space’, which justly is named as probabilistic thinking, reasoning and mind are smoothly transformed, flow on each other. In the central circle lying on the ‘territory’ of reasoning and mind, the intelligence is placed. It performs an organic synthesis, mutual enabling of Reasoning and Mind. The wider the circle occupies the ‘territory’ of Reasoning and Mind, the greater and deeper is the intelligence itself.

Such modest evaluation of thinking and mind completely correspond to the probabilistic character of empirical thinking. Because on the basis of experience may be obtained only probable conclusions. In this case there is no place for deduction, nor for intuition. But where there is no deduction and no intuition, there is no Mind as a highest capability to think, combining these two. Yes and of thinking as a whole must be spoken as of some unintelligible makeweight to sensitivity. As a matter of fact, what is thinking without mind, that is, without Power and Depth?! Yes, and in general:
is thinking possible without mutual interaction (in broad sence) of logics and intuition?

Side by side is presented the scheme about the correspondence of rationalism, empirism, irrationalism and ‘rasumism’. As we can see, it is analogous to the structural scheme.

1. The term ‘rationalism’ does not suit for the denomination of the position mentioned, because in Russian it may be understood as ‘rasumism’ and as “рассудизм” (F258). This undefiniteness in not understanding the term constitutes a constant danger of interpreting it in onesided sense (as “рассудизм”). This in the first place.
2. Secondly, the onesidedness of rationalism as if produces and gives as a fact essentially counterpositioned irrationalism. Argumantation between rationalism and irrationalism is essentially the situation of positioned conflict, as in the court: between the accused and the defence. Correspondingly, as in court, there must be an arbiter between rationalism and irrationalism. That cannot be rationalism, because itself is one of the disputing sides.

The role that deduction plays in science is much more important than Bacon supposed. Often when a hypothesis must be proven, a long deductive process occurs from the hypothesis to a few conclusions, which may be verified by observations. Usually deduction is mathematical and in this connection Bacon did not enough appreciate the importance of mathematics in scientific research.

B. Russell

We cannot think any object otherwise than with the help of categories.

I. Kant

‘… works supporting science and such named scientists are here (in the history of language – L.B.) only continuation of activity of tribes and nations. Mass anonymous to us, mass, which may be seen as one big philosopher, already thousand years have used means of definition along general categories and accelerating thought and composed in language for the use of future fruit of the present efforts’ (F277).