There is nothing unambiguous in the world. If you are guided by accurate knowledge, you can miss a lot. The world does not live exactly according to the instructions that are written by man. Much has not yet been explored.

When a person does not know something, he turns on abstract thinking, which helps him make guesses, make judgments, and reason. To understand what it is, you need to familiarize yourself with examples, forms and methods of its development.

What is Abstract Thinking?

What is it and why does the psychotherapeutic help site touch on the topic of abstract thinking? It is the ability to think in general that helps in finding a solution to an impasse, in the emergence of a different view of the world.

There is precise and generalized thinking. Accurate thinking is activated when a person has knowledge, information and a clear understanding of what is happening. Generalized thinking turns on when a person does not know the exact data, does not have specific information. He can guess, assume, draw general conclusions. Generalized thinking is abstract thinking in simple words.

The scientific language of abstract thinking is a type of cognitive activity when a person moves away from specific details and begins to reason in general. The picture is considered as a whole, without affecting the details, specifics, accuracy. This contributes to the departure from the rules and dogmas and consideration of the situation from different angles. When an event is considered in general, then there are various ways to solve it.

Usually a person proceeds from specific knowledge. For example, a man lies on the couch and watches TV. The thought arises: "He's a slacker." In this situation, the viewer proceeds from his own ideas about what is happening. What could actually be happening? The man lay down for 5 minutes to rest. He had already done everything around the house, so he allowed himself to watch TV. He got sick, so he lies on the couch. There can be many variations of what is happening here. If you ignore the specifics and look at the situation from different angles, then you can find out a lot of new and interesting things.

In abstract thinking, a person thinks approximately. There are no specifics or details here. Generalized words are used: “life”, “world”, “in general”, “by and large”.

Abstract thinking is useful in situations where a person cannot find a way out (intellectual impasse). Due to the lack of information or knowledge, he is forced to reason, guess. If we abstract from the situation with its specific details, then we can consider in it what was not noticed before.

Abstract logical thinking

In abstract-logical thinking, abstractions are used - units of certain patterns that have been isolated from the "abstract", "imaginary" qualities of an object, phenomenon. In other words, a person operates with phenomena that he cannot “touch with his hands”, “see with his eyes”, “smell”.

A very striking example of such thinking is mathematics, which explains phenomena that do not exist in physical nature. For example, there is no such thing as the number "2". The person understands that we are talking about two identical units. However, this figure was invented by people in order to simplify some phenomena.

The progress and development of mankind has forced people to use concepts that in fact do not exist. Another striking example would be the language a person uses. There are no letters, words, sentences in nature. Man invented the alphabet, words and expressions to simplify the expression of his thoughts, which he wants to convey to other people. This allowed people to find a common language, since everyone understands the meaning of the same word, recognizes letters, builds sentences.

Abstract-logical thinking becomes necessary in a situation where there is some certainty, which is not yet understood and known to man, and the emergence of an intellectual impasse. There is a need to identify what is in reality, to find a definition for it.

Abstraction is divided into types and purposes. Types of abstraction:

• Primitive-sensual - highlighting some properties of an object, ignoring its other qualities. For example, considering the structure, but ignoring the form of the subject.
• Generalizing - highlighting a common characteristic in one phenomenon, ignoring the presence of individual characteristics.
• Idealizing - replacing real properties with an ideal scheme that eliminates existing shortcomings.
• Isolating - highlights the component on which attention is focused.
• Actual infinity – infinite sets are defined as finite.
• Constructivization - "coarseness", giving form to phenomena that have vague boundaries.

According to the goals of abstraction there are:

1. Formal (theoretical thinking), when a person considers objects according to their external manifestations. These qualities themselves do not exist on their own without these objects and phenomena.
2. Content, when a person can single out a property from an object or phenomenon that can exist on its own, be autonomous.

The development of abstract-logical thinking is important, since it was it that made it possible to isolate from the surrounding world that which cannot be recognized by the natural senses. Here, concepts (linguistic expressions) were formed that convey the general pattern of a particular phenomenon. Now each person does not have to identify this or that concept, since he learns about it in the process of learning at school, university, at home, etc. This brings us to the next topic about forms of abstract thinking.

Forms of abstract thinking

Since a person cannot “create a wheel” every time, he must systematize the knowledge gained. Many phenomena are not visible to the human eye, something does not exist at all, but all this is in human life, therefore it must have one form or another. In abstract thinking, there are 3 forms:

1. Concept.

This is a thought that conveys a common property that can be traced in different subjects. They may be different. However, their homogeneity and similarity allows a person to combine them into one group. So, for example, a chair. It can be with round handles or square seats. Different chairs have a different color, shape, composition. However, their common feature is that they have 4 legs and it is customary to sit on them. The same purpose of objects and their design allows a person to be combined into one group.

People teach these concepts to children from childhood. Speaking of "dog", we mean an animal that runs on 4 legs, barks, barks, etc. Dogs themselves come in different breeds. However, they all have the same characteristics, according to which they are combined into one common concept - "dog".

1. Judgment.

People use this form of abstraction when they want to confirm or refute something. Moreover, this verbal form is unambiguous. It comes in two forms: simple and complex. Simple - for example, a cat meows. It is short and clear. The second - "the garbage was thrown out, the bucket was empty." It is often expressed in whole sentences of narrative form.

The judgment may be true or false. A true judgment reflects the real state of affairs and is often based on the fact that a person does not show any relation to him, that is, he judges objectively. A judgment becomes false when a person is interested in it and is based on his own conclusions, and not on the real picture of what is happening.

1. Inference.

This is a thought that is formed on the basis of two or more judgments, from which a new judgment is formed. In every conclusion there are 3 components: premise (premise), conclusion and conclusion. The premise (premise) is the initial judgments. Inference is the process of logical thinking that leads to a conclusion - a new judgment.

Examples of Abstract Thinking

Having considered the theoretical part of abstract thinking, you should familiarize yourself with various examples. The most striking example of what an abstract judgment is is the exact sciences. Mathematics, physics, astronomy and other sciences are often based on abstract thinking. We do not see numbers as such, but we can count. We collect objects in a group and call their number.

The man talks about life. But what is it? This is the existence of a body in which a person moves, breathes, functions. It is impossible to give a clear definition of what life is. However, a person can unambiguously determine when someone lives and when they die.

Clearly abstract thinking manifests itself when a person thinks about the future. It is not known what will happen there, but everyone has goals, desires, plans. Without the ability to dream and imagine, a person would not be able to plan for the future. Now he seeks to realize these goals. His movement through life becomes more purposeful. Strategies and tactics are emerging that should lead to the desired future. This reality does not yet exist, but a person strives to form it the way he wants to see it.

Another common form of abstraction is idealization. People like to idealize others and the world in general. Women dream of princes from fairy tales, not noticing what men are in the real world. Men dream of obedient wives, ignoring the fact that only an unthinking being can be subordinate to another.

Many people use judgment. Often they are false. Thus, a woman may conclude that "all men are bad" after being betrayed by a single partner. Since she singles out a man as a single class, which is characterized by the same quality, she ascribes to everyone the quality that manifested itself in one person.

Often, wrong conclusions are made on the basis of false judgments. For example, “the neighbors are unfriendly”, “heating is not supplied”, “the wiring needs to be changed” means “the apartment is dysfunctional”. Based on the emotional discomfort that occurs under the circumstances, unambiguous judgments and conclusions are made that distort reality.

Development of abstract thinking

The most optimal age for the development of abstract thinking is the preschool period. As soon as the child begins to explore the world, he can be helped in the development of all kinds of thinking.

Toys are the most effective way of development. Through shapes, volumes, colors, etc., the child first begins to recognize the details, and then combine them into groups. You can give the child several toys of a square or round shape, so that he divides them into two piles according to the same characteristics.

As soon as a child learns to draw, sculpt, make with his own hands, he should be allowed to engage in such hobbies. This develops not only fine motor skills, but also contributes to the manifestation of creativity. We can say that abstract thinking is creativity that is not limited by frames, shapes, colors.

When a child learns to read, count, write and perceive words by sound, you can work with him to develop abstract-logical thinking. Riddles that should be solved are well suited here, puzzles where it is necessary to solve some question, exercises for ingenuity, where it is necessary to notice an error, an inaccuracy.

Since abstract thinking is not born with a person, but develops as he grows, various rebuses, crosswords, and puzzles will help here. There is a lot of literature on how to develop different kinds of thinking. It should be understood that some puzzles cannot develop only one type of thinking. All of them are partially or completely involved in the development of various types of cognitive activity.

Particularly effective are various life situations in which the child must find a way out of the situation. A simple task to take out the garbage will force the child to first think about how to dress and what to wear in order to leave the house and carry the garbage bag to the bin. If the garbage can is far from home, then it will be forced to predict its route in advance. Forecasting the future is another way to develop abstract thinking. Children have a good imagination, which should not be oppressed.

Outcome

The result of abstract thinking is that a person is able to find solutions in any situation. He thinks creatively, flexibly, outside the box. Not always accurate knowledge is objective and able to help in any situation. Circumstances happen different, which makes a person think, reason, predict.

Psychologists note the negative consequences if parents do not engage in the development of this thinking in their child. Firstly, the baby will not learn to distinguish the general from the details and, conversely, move from the general to the details. Secondly, he will not be able to show flexibility of thinking in situations in which he does not know a way out. Thirdly, he will be deprived of the ability to predict the future of his actions.

Abstract thinking differs from linear thinking in that a person does not think in terms of cause and effect. He abstracts from the details and begins to reason in general. The most remarkable thing here is that only after a general vision of affairs can a person move on to the details that are important in a situation. And when the details do not help in solving the problem, then there is a need to abstract, to go beyond what is happening.

Abstract thinking allows you to find something new, to create, to create. If a person were deprived of such thinking, then he would not be able to create a wheel, a car, an airplane and other technologies that many people use now. There would be no progress that arises first from the ability of a person to imagine, dream, go beyond the accepted and reasonable. These skills are also useful in everyday life, when a person is faced with different characters and behaviors of people whom he has never met before. The ability to quickly rebuild and adapt to unchanging circumstances is due to abstract thinking.

Seminar of the Institute for System-Strategic Analysis "Complex thinking and the Network. The paradigm of non-linearity and the theory of complex adaptive systems in the security environment of the 21st century." Director of the Center for Strategic Studies "Ashkhar" (Armenia), candidate of technical sciences, lecturer at Artsakh State University Hrachya Arzumanyan made a presentation. Andrey Fursov, Dmitry Peretolchin and other participants of the seminar took part in the discussion of the report.

In principle, the speakers drew attention to the aspect that catches the eye most of all - namely, the speaker's attempt to indicate the need to create a certain common denominator for science (including philosophy), religion, aesthetics and art.

It is my deep conviction that science has an absolute monopoly on rational knowledge of the world, although it does not have such a monopoly on all types of knowledge of the world in general (for example, with the help of faith). However, at the moment there are practically no significant scientific disciplines that are not in a state of crisis. This applies to both the natural sciences and the humanities. All these rating systems, h-indexes, etc., lead to the profanation of science, when a doctor of sciences can have one citation index with a technician. There is no need to talk about the humanities - there is total politicization, ideologization, etc.

However, science is in an institutional crisis, which Andrey Ilyich Fursov very correctly noted in the seminar, and this crisis is in no way connected with the crisis of the fundamental foundations of science, i.e. using logic, drawing up chains of cause and effect relationships and creating an appropriate evidence base. Religion is based on a miracle, on faith, on something that is fundamentally unprovable, just as the existence of God is unprovable, since his essence is transcendent.

Therefore, it is impossible to combine science and religion, and any attempt to cross a bulldog with a rhinoceros will end with only one known result. No matter how much respected Hrachya Arzumanyan tries to create something similar, all his attempts are doomed to failure. After all, even if we imagine that they will turn to him from the administration of the President of Armenia and say, they say, Rachya Vagarshakovich, we are interested in your complex thinking and we would like to use your achievements in creating a new concept of the country's national security, then he will have to prove and substantiate his position, using logic and the principle of causality. As well as in the event that after the report he is asked, why is his idea better than others? That is, in any case, you have to operate scientific approach, and not some other or hybrid one. Always and without exception, when it comes to justification, one has to operate with logic, evidence and the principle of causality. Otherwise, any speaker will be kicked out if he suddenly begins to appeal to religion not as a factor necessary when taking into account certain military-political trends and how it affects them, but as an argument using faith and the supernatural. Not a single scientist, and indeed any sane person, would say to the head of state when justifying the choice of this or that concept of national security (and indeed, anything) that he only believes into the correctness of his concept, without proving his assertions, or he will undertake to fill the lack of evidence with faith. Obviously this is nonsense, to which there will be an appropriate reaction.

In general, both the book and the report are extremely interesting. The only negative is an attempt to combine the incongruous at the beginning. I just don't want this wonderful researcher to waste a few years chasing the impossible. I think he should take a scientific approach. Moreover, a report and a book devoted to complex thinking and complex adaptive systems in general do not need the part that deals with the search for a common denominator for science, religion, aesthetics and art. In fact, if you didn’t write (in a book) and say (in a report) about it, then no one would have seen the difference. This part is simply not needed, it is superfluous.

In any case, complex thinking needs further research, and Arzumayan's work here is extremely interesting.

We often face difficult problems in life. Such that we decide, we decide - but we cannot decide. That is how complex these problems are.

So. I take it upon myself to assert that these are not complex problems. There are no complex problems, all problems are simple. This is what we ourselves make complex problems out of simple ones, because we think too complicated.

I'll give you an example. First, I will show you the complex thinking that keeps you from taking action. And then I will show simple thinking that allows you to act.

Complex thinking: overcome laziness caused by complexes hidden in the subconscious, using various techniques for working through repressed emotions.

Simple thinking: go wash the dishes.

It is quite obvious that only simple thinking can inspire to washing dishes here. And complex thinking turns out to be so complex that it is not even clear where to start your actions.

This is how we make complex problems out of simple ones. We begin to think too complicated about simple things and tasks, and we begin to think that they themselves are so complicated. But they are not complex. We made them difficult.

The only result of complicating a problem is that we lose the ability to solve it. And when we simplify a problem, it actually ceases to be a problem. Because the solution to any simple problem immediately becomes obvious.

That is, we ourselves create problems for ourselves - by constantly complicating everything. Well, really, how can you create a problem out of washing dishes? You just wash it and that's it. Well, or do not wash, if you decide to do something else. But almost all people regularly manage to create unsolvable problems from much simpler problems.

And the thing is that our thinking can be anything. Whether simple or complex, whatever. And when we think simple, everything becomes simple, and when we think complex, everything becomes complicated. But we do not know about it, and we think that everything is really complicated, and our thinking has nothing to do with it.

However, it still has something to do with it. It is thinking that turns a simple problem into a “complex” one. Therefore, in order to turn “complex” problems into simple ones again, we need to learn to think simply.

How to think simply? Obviously very simple. :) First, you need to think in the shortest possible sentences, on average 2-5 words each. Secondly, it is necessary to use the minimum required set of words. Do not use special terms unnecessarily. And all the time to check whether it is possible to formulate the same thought even simpler.

And when you start thinking so simply, it will become obvious to you that everything is simple. There is something. Something is missing. Something you are doing. You don't do something. Something you like. Something is not pleasant. Etc.

Then you will understand that there are no complex "psychological" problems. You do not need to engage in psychoanalysis or go to a psychotherapist. Because the only thing a psychotherapist can do is teach you to think in a different way so that your thinking becomes effective and leads to useful actions. But if you think simply, you already think effectively and start acting right away.

As for the “complex” physical problems, then, again, everything is simple with them too. Any real problem is solved by one or another sequence of actions. You just act and that's it. And look at the results of your actions. And you see that the problem is either solved or not. And, if you don’t decide, just start acting differently.

When you start thinking simply, you will realize that everything is really simple. And everything will always be easy. And everything has always been easy.

You just thought too hard about everything before.

The information received by a person from the surrounding world allows a person to represent not only the external, but also the internal side of an object, to represent objects in the absence of themselves, to foresee their change in time, to rush with thought into boundless distances and the microcosm. All this is possible through the process of thinking. In under thinking understand the process of cognitive activity of an individual, characterized by a generalized and indirect reflection of reality. Objects and phenomena of reality have such properties and relationships that can be known directly, with the help of sensations and perceptions (colors, sounds, shapes, placement and movement of bodies in visible space).

The first feature of thinking- its mediated nature. What a person cannot cognize directly, directly, he cognizes indirectly, indirectly: some properties through others, the unknown through the known. Thinking is always based on the data of sensory experience - representations - and on previously acquired theoretical knowledge. Indirect knowledge is also indirect knowledge.

The second feature of thinking- its generalization. Generalization as knowledge of the general and essential in the objects of reality is possible because all the properties of these objects are connected with each other. The general exists and manifests itself only in the individual, in the concrete.

People express generalizations through speech, language. Verbal designation refers not only to a single object, but also to a whole group of similar objects. Generalization is also inherent in images (representations and even perceptions). But there it is always limited visibility. The word allows you to generalize without limit. Philosophical concepts of matter, motion, law, essence, phenomenon, quality, quantity, etc. - the broadest generalizations expressed in a word.

The results of people's cognitive activity are recorded in the form of concepts. A concept is a reflection of the essential features of an object. The concept of an object arises on the basis of many judgments and conclusions about it. The concept as a result of the generalization of people's experience is the highest product of the brain, the highest stage of cognition of the world.

Human thinking proceeds in the form of judgments and conclusions.. Judgment is a form of thinking that reflects the objects of reality in their connections and relationships. Each judgment is a separate thought about something. A consistent logical connection of several judgments, necessary in order to solve any mental problem, to understand something, to find an answer to a question, is called reasoning. Reasoning has practical meaning only when it leads to a certain conclusion, a conclusion. The conclusion will be the answer to the question, the result of the search for thought.

inference- this is a conclusion from several judgments, giving us new knowledge about the objects and phenomena of the objective world. Inferences are inductive, deductive and by analogy.

Thinking is the highest level of human cognition of reality. Sensual basis of thinking are sensations, perceptions and representations. Through the sense organs - these are the only channels of communication between the body and the outside world - information enters the brain. The content of information is processed by the brain. The most complex (logical) form of information processing is the activity of thinking. Solving the mental tasks that life puts before a person, he reflects, draws conclusions and thereby cognizes the essence of things and phenomena, discovers the laws of their connection, and then transforms the world on this basis.

Thinking is not only closely connected with sensations and perceptions, but it is formed on the basis of them. The transition from sensation to thought is a complex process, which consists, first of all, in the selection and isolation of an object or its attribute, in abstraction from the concrete, individual and the establishment of the essential, common to many objects.

Thinking acts mainly as a solution to problems, questions, problems that are constantly put forward before people by life. Solving problems should always give a person something new, new knowledge. The search for solutions is sometimes very difficult, so mental activity, as a rule, is an active activity that requires focused attention and patience. The real process of thought is always a process not only cognitive, but also emotional-volitional.

For human thinking, the relationship is not with sensory cognition, but with speech and language. In a stricter sense speech- the process of communication mediated by language. If language is an objective, historically established system of codes and the subject of a special science - linguistics, then speech is a psychological process of formulating and transmitting thoughts by means of language.

Modern psychology does not believe that inner speech has the same structure and the same functions as extended outer speech. By internal speech, psychology means an essential transitional stage between the idea and expanded external speech. A mechanism that allows you to recode the general meaning into a speech statement, i.e. inner speech is, first of all, not an extended speech statement, but only preparatory stage.

However, the inseparable connection between thinking and speech does not at all mean that thinking can be reduced to speech. Thinking and speaking are not the same thing. Thinking does not mean talking about yourself. Evidence of this is the possibility of expressing the same thought in different words, as well as the fact that we do not always find the right words to express our thought.

The objective material form of thinking is language. A thought becomes a thought both for oneself and for others only through the word—oral and written. Thanks to the language, people's thoughts are not lost, but are transmitted in the form of a system of knowledge from generation to generation. However, there are additional means of transmitting the results of thinking: light and sound signals, electrical impulses, gestures, etc. Modern science and technology widely use conventional signs as a universal and economical means of transmitting information.

Thinking is also inextricably linked with the practical activities of people. Any type of activity involves thinking, taking into account the conditions of action, planning, observation. By acting, a person solves any problems. Practical activity is the main condition for the emergence and development of thinking, as well as a criterion for the truth of thinking.

thought processes

The mental activity of a person is a solution to various mental problems aimed at revealing the essence of something. A mental operation is one of the ways of mental activity through which a person solves mental problems.

Thinking operations are varied. These are analysis and synthesis, comparison, abstraction, concretization, generalization, classification. Which of the logical operations a person will use will depend on the task and on the nature of the information that he subjects to mental processing.

Analysis and synthesis

Analysis- this is a mental decomposition of the whole into parts or a mental separation from the whole of its sides, actions, relations.

Synthesis- the reverse process of thought to analysis, it is the unification of parts, properties, actions, relations into one whole.

Analysis and synthesis are two interrelated logical operations. Synthesis, like analysis, can be both practical and mental.

Analysis and synthesis were formed in the practical activity of man. People constantly interact with objects and phenomena. Practical development of them led to the formation of mental operations of analysis and synthesis.

Comparison

Comparison- this is the establishment of similarities and differences between objects and phenomena.

The comparison is based on analysis. Before comparing objects, it is necessary to select one or more of their features, according to which the comparison will be made.

The comparison can be one-sided, or incomplete, and multi-sided, or more complete. Comparison, like analysis and synthesis, can be of different levels - superficial and deeper. In this case, a person's thought goes from external signs of similarity and difference to internal ones, from the visible to the hidden, from the phenomenon to the essence.

abstraction

abstraction- this is a process of mental abstraction from some signs, aspects of the concrete in order to better know it.

A person mentally highlights some feature of an object and considers it in isolation from all other features, temporarily distracted from them. An isolated study of individual features of an object, while simultaneously abstracting from all the others, helps a person to better understand the essence of things and phenomena. Thanks to abstraction, a person was able to break away from the individual, concrete and rise to the highest level of knowledge - scientific theoretical thinking.

Specification

Specification- a process that is the opposite of abstraction and is inextricably linked with it.

Concretization is the return of thought from the general and abstract to the concrete in order to reveal the content.

Thinking activity is always aimed at obtaining some result. A person analyzes objects, compares them, abstracts individual properties in order to reveal what is common in them, in order to reveal the patterns that govern their development, in order to master them.

Generalization, therefore, is the selection in objects and phenomena of the general, which is expressed in the form of a concept, law, rule, formula, etc.

Types of thinking

Depending on what place the word, image and action occupy in the thought process, how they relate to each other, distinguish three types of thinking: concrete-effective, or practical, concrete-figurative and abstract. These types of thinking are also distinguished on the basis of the characteristics of tasks - practical and theoretical.

Actionable Thinking

Visual and effective- a type of thinking based on the direct perception of objects.

Specifically effective, or objectively effective, thinking is aimed at solving specific problems in the conditions of production, constructive, organizational and other practical activities of people. Practical thinking is, first of all, technical, constructive thinking. It consists in the understanding of technology and in the ability of a person to independently solve technical problems. The process of technical activity is the process of interaction between mental and practical components of work. Complex operations of abstract thinking are intertwined with the practical actions of a person, inextricably linked with them. Characteristic features concrete-effective thinking are bright strong observation, attention to detail, particulars and the ability to use them in a particular situation, operating with spatial images and schemes, the ability to quickly move from thinking to action and vice versa. It is in this kind of thinking that the unity of thought and will is manifested to the greatest extent.

Concrete-figurative thinking

Visual-figurative- a type of thinking characterized by reliance on ideas and images.

Concrete-figurative (visual-figurative), or artistic, thinking is characterized by the fact that a person embodies abstract thoughts, generalizations into concrete images.

Abstract thinking

Verbal-logical- a kind of thinking carried out with the help of logical operations with concepts.

Abstract, or verbal-logical, thinking is mainly aimed at finding common patterns in nature and human society. Abstract, theoretical thinking reflects general connections and relationships. It operates mainly with concepts, broad categories, and images, representations play an auxiliary role in it.

All three types of thinking are closely related to each other. Many people have equally developed concrete-active, concrete-figurative and theoretical thinking, but depending on the nature of the tasks that a person solves, then one, then another, then a third type of thinking comes to the fore.

Types and types of thinking

Practical-active, visual-figurative and theoretical-abstract - these are the interconnected types of thinking. In the process of the historical development of mankind, the human intellect was initially formed in the course of practical activity. So, people learned to measure land plots by experience, and then on this basis a special theoretical science gradually arose - geometry.

Genetically, the earliest kind of thinking is action-oriented thinking; actions with objects are of decisive importance in it (in its infancy it is also observed in animals).

On the basis of practical-effective, manipulative thinking arises visual-figurative thinking. It is characterized by operating with visual images in the mind.

The highest level of thinking is abstract, abstract thinking. However, here, too, thinking retains a connection with practice. As they say, there is nothing more practical than a correct theory.

The thinking of individuals is also divided into practical-effective, figurative and abstract (theoretical).

But in the process of life, one and the same person comes to the fore either one or another type of thinking. So, everyday affairs require practical-effective thinking, and a report on a scientific topic requires theoretical thinking, etc.

Structural unit of practical-effective (operational) thinking - action; artistic - image; scientific thinking concept.

Depending on the depth of generalization, empirical and theoretical thinking are distinguished.

empirical thinking(from the Greek. empeiria - experience) gives primary generalizations based on experience. These generalizations are made at a low level of abstraction. Empirical knowledge is the lowest, elementary level of knowledge. Empirical thinking should not be confused with practical thinking.

As noted by the well-known psychologist V. M. Teplov (“The Mind of a Commander”), many psychologists take the work of a scientist, a theorist, as the only model of mental activity. Meanwhile, practical activity requires no less intellectual effort.

The mental activity of the theoretician is concentrated mainly on the first part of the path of cognition - a temporary retreat, a retreat from practice. The mental activity of the practitioner is mainly concentrated on the second part of it - on the transition from abstract thinking to practice, that is, on that "hit" in practice, for the sake of which the theoretical digression is made.

A feature of practical thinking is subtle observation, the ability to focus attention on individual details of an event, the ability to use to solve a particular problem that special and singular that was not completely included in theoretical generalization, the ability to quickly move from thinking to action.

In the practical thinking of a person, the optimal ratio of his mind and will, the cognitive, regulatory and energy capabilities of the individual is essential. Practical thinking is associated with the operational setting of priority goals, the development of flexible plans, programs, great self-control in stressful conditions of activity.

Theoretical thinking reveals universal relations, explores the object of knowledge in the system of its necessary connections. Its result is the construction of conceptual models, the creation of theories, the generalization of experience, the disclosure of the patterns of development of various phenomena, the knowledge of which ensures the transformative activity of man. Theoretical thinking is inextricably linked with practice, but in its final results it has relative independence; it is based on previous knowledge and, in turn, serves as the basis for subsequent knowledge.

Algorithmic, discursive, heuristic and creative thinking are distinguished depending on the standard/non-standard nature of the tasks being solved and operational procedures.

Algorithmic thinking is focused on pre-established rules, the generally accepted sequence of actions necessary to solve typical problems.

discursive(from lat. discursus - reasoning) thinking based on a system of interconnected inferences.

heuristic thinking(from the Greek heuresko - I find) - this is productive thinking, consisting in solving non-standard tasks.

Creative thinking- thinking that leads to new discoveries, fundamentally new results.

There are also reproductive and productive thinking.

reproductive thinking- reproduction of previously obtained results. In this case, thinking merges with memory.

Productive Thinking- thinking that leads to new cognitive results.

The last decades of world history are characterized by most researchers, statesmen and public figures as an era of deep and rapid changes. At the same time, we can talk about some originality of the emerging era, when the development of the philosophical and conceptual foundations of the new world takes place in parallel with the changes themselves. Under these conditions, the only reliable basis for understanding the new times is

a statement of the mobility of the theoretical support on the basis of which it is comprehended and built. This suggests the possibility and even the need to make changes not only in the “ornament”, but also in the foundation of the world under construction, which turns out to be “catastrophically fragile and brittle or mobile and deformable like lava”.

And, if such a conclusion is acceptable for philosophical and other theoretical discourses, it turns out to be unacceptable for the security sphere. Having stated that the security environment of the 21st century is undergoing qualitative changes, organizations responsible for the security system of society do not have the right to postpone its development for the future, appealing to the impossibility of “grabbing” the elusive dynamics and creating an internally consistent vision of the future and its threats. National security cannot be reduced solely to theoretical discourse and includes elements and systems that are part of society and public life. The development and functioning of these systems needs concepts and doctrines, on the basis of which an understanding, albeit imperfect, of the challenges and threats to society and methods of responding to them is built.

In this sense, we can talk about a serious challenge and a kind of paradox when the imperatives of the emerging era force us to develop a theoretical basis that initially implies qualitative changes implemented through the mechanisms of adaptation and co-evolution. "Basis", in the semantic field of common sense, associated with constancy and immutability, at the same time acquires the attributes of continuous and qualitative changes. Is this approach to military thinking and thinking in terms of national security acceptable? Being inertial and rigid, the latter require appropriate rigidity from their doctrinal documents, and how to combine objective rigidity with the imperative of continuous innovation not only of technologies, but also of ideas? Where is the balance between inertia and mobility, and on what philosophical positions and ideological space, on the basis of what paradigm and in the terms and concepts of which sciences should it be built?

As a response to the challenge, the synthesis of complex thinking, systemicity and the Network obtained on the basis of the nonlinearity paradigm is of interest. In particular, as part of the process of transforming the military sphere, Western military thought has put forward the concepts of network-centricity, which have been intensively developed, implemented and developed over the past decades.

The process of introducing the language of complexity and non-linearity into military theory can be observed at all levels of war. For example, the current trend in operational analysis prefers to write about complex operations and interdepartmental operational art ( interagency operational art), the roots of which are rooted in systemic, holistic interaction and frames, covering all elements of national power and society as a whole. At the same time, we can talk about two dominant visions of future operations. The first relies on centrally managed, integrated civil-military campaigns ( centrallycontrolledintegratedcivil-military campaign). This direction is developing within the framework of the theory of operational holism, which in a number of ways resembles the blitzkrieg of the 20th century.

Adjacent to this vision is the body of doctrines of network and network-centric wars. The second vision and type of operational art develops within the framework of the concepts of irregular wars and qualitatively differs not only from the centralized vision of the doctrines of operational holism, but also from the military operations of the 20th century. A similar clash of inherently polar views and approaches to assessing the nature and forms of military confrontation in the 21st century can also be observed at the strategic, military-political levels of war and other arenas of the security environment. It is obvious that in this case we are not talking about the "complete and final victory" of one of the visions, but a moving balance and a kind of "swing" that reflects the results of the political and theoretical struggle in the relevant circles. Thus, today, using the example of the United States, one can clearly see how decades of dominance of the holistic pole of large-scale conventional wars are being replaced by an increase in the proportion of irregular wars.

Perhaps the metaphor of "hedgehog" and "fox" that can be found in recent discourses on strategy and war would be appropriate here. Isaiah Berlin in the famous essay “The Hedgehog and the Fox”, exploring the historical views of Leo Tolstoy, used “elegant and mysterious, like Japanese haiku”, the line of the ancient Greek poet Archilochus (7th century BC): “The fox knows many secrets, and hedgehog - one, but the most important. “Isaiah,” writes Berlin biographer Michael Ignatiev, “immediately began to divide all the great minds of the past into hedgehogs and foxes: Goethe and Pushkin are foxes, Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy are hedgehogs.” "Hedgehogs" are people of "one idea" that determines their thoughts and actions. “Foxes” are “pluralists” with little concern for the integrity of their worldview: “there is a deep contradiction between those ... who associate everything with one central vision<…>the only, universal, organizing principle, and<…>those who pursue many goals, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected only by some de facto way, if they connect at all." This largely conventional "dichotomy" allowed Berlin to highlight the difference between focused and centripetal "hedgehogs" and more changeable and centrifugal "foxes".

Looking at the security environment of the 21st century through the prism of this metaphor allows us to talk about the need for two polar views - a focused and holistic one, intentionally grasping phenomena and processes within a common frame, and a decentralized one, seeking to reflect processes without developing such a frame. The formation of two poles that set tension in the space of ideas, in which responses to challenges are then sought, seems to be the most promising approach when considering the theoretical foundations of the 21st century security environment. Within the framework of this work, the philosophical, methodological and conceptual foundations of a holistic vision are considered, the consideration of which is carried out through a careful look at the concepts of network-centricity, the paradigm of nonlinearity and the Network.

The assumption that both objective and social reality can be described within the framework of complex thinking and the science of complexity leads to a pluralism of philosophical position and complexity-based epistemology, which excludes the possibility of the existence of a universal method of knowing. Various discourses are included in the wide frame of complex thinking and the science of complexity, which allows us to speak of a kind of evolutionary philosophy, in which various approaches and methods of cognition find themselves in a “competitive struggle” for the most adequate representation and explanation of the phenomenon or system being studied. Through the prism of the theory of complex adaptive systems and the science of complexity, the basic principles and laws of systems theory and, further, social systems are considered.

Understanding the non-linear nature of war in the context of the security environment of the 21st century is an important step leading to a reassessment of the principles, strategy and tactics of warfare. The development of a non-linear view of war in the West is closely connected with the name of Clausewitz, who is a symbol of non-linearity in the military sphere.

Strategic culture permeates the entire military sphere, uniting it into a single whole and providing answers to the questions why, when and how the people and their armed forces wage war. Strategy, linking military power to political goals, is difficult and certainly different from both military training and political experience. The dissipation of the fog and friction of war, the assessment of strategic horizons at all times required a high exertion of intellectual forces and was a complex art. When dealing with strategic forecasts, one should be aware that the future, along with unpredictability, brings with it an element of strategic surprise. The main problem in this case is not so much the surprise itself, but its consequences and adaptation to them.

The transformation of the military sphere, changes in the structure of power and society, the geostrategic and military contexts of the new era form a new military reality, which the theory of network-centric wars is designed to reflect. The theory of network-centric warfare gives its vision of war in the information age, exerting a profound influence on the forms of its organization and conduct.

Effects-based thinking implies an understanding of the importance of connecting the military with other elements of national power to achieve the operational and strategic goals of war. Through effects-based thinking, there is a chance that over time it will become the norm to realize that actions taken can lead to cumulative and cascading effects that spread across all levels and arenas in which national policies are implemented. An effects-based approach can help to understand the importance of clearly defining national policy goals and outcomes of the national security strategy being implemented.

Fully electronic version of Rachya Arzumanyan's book “The Edge of Chaos.