Author of quotes: Evald Vasilyevich Ilyenkov. Page 2

It is known that the best rules and recipes, getting into stupid head, do not make this head are smarter, but they turn themselves into ridiculous absurdities. This, alas, is too well known. Hardly anyone would dispute that the teaching of formal logic, introduced in schools some time ago "on the personal instructions of comrade Stalin," did not increase the number of "smart" and reduced the number of "stupid" among high school graduates.

The trick of the teacher is not to zastupovat in the individual the ability to act according to a learned scheme, the ability to turn it on a predetermined "basis" of its applicability, and to put the child in a situation in which he would be forced to act himself as the "self" as a subject. The situation must be ostrokonechniki. Ie: one where a known individual "operations" and "signs" their inclusion is denied, and the individual must find a way to resolve difficulties, discover new (though not new for the teacher) to a course of action.
The art teacher is the ability to create a "difficult" situation, in which would objectively only one exit, the one that the teacher is known, but the child - is unknown and must be found them as "new" instead of "operation" for a given symptom.
Under this condition, the "operation" is learned, but not by training and zastanowienie, but by independent action of the individual, through the awakening of his productive activity.

Science (scientific understanding of reality), according to this philosophy, is a system of utterances linking in one consistent complex the elements of “our experience”, sensations. A consistent set of symbols, interconnected in accordance with the requirements and prohibitions of formal logic. According to the Machists, these requirements and prohibitions do not reflect anything in objective reality. They are simply requirements and norms for working with symbols, and logic is a set of techniques for this work. Logic therefore is a science that does not reflect anything in objective reality, but gives only the sum of the rules governing the work with symbols of every kind. Work with symbols. In the name of what? What is the purpose of this work? Where do its norms come from? The Machians are also ready to answer this. “If the rule of law is aimed at maintaining and maintaining a well-known socio-economic system, then the norm of thinking should consider adaptation of the organism to its environment as its ultimate goal” 6. From the needs of the body (that is, from the needs of a completely biologically interpreted person), the Machists derive their understanding of thinking. From the need for balance, from the supposedly inherent need for eliminating all and all kinds of contradictions. “Of course, thinking that is completely free from contradictions is only an ideal, to which we should approach [53] as far as possible; but from the fact that we are very far from it, both in the past thoughts and in the present, it does not at all follow that we must abandon the struggle against contradiction ... ”7 Thinking, like all other mental functions of man, is directly is interpreted as an activity directed - as at its goal immanently laid down in the body of an individual - to maintain (or to restore disturbed) balance. “Every organism is a dynamic system of physical and chemical processes, that is, a system in which individual processes support each other in a state of equilibrium.” 2. Equilibrium, understood as the absence of any conflict states within the body, is here superior the principle of thinking, logic as a system of rules, the observance of which ensures the achievement of this goal, that is, of a state where the body does not experience any needs, but is in a balanced calm and stillness. It is easy to see how unsuitable for the revolutionary’s thinking is the logic resulting from such an understanding of thinking. This logic made the mind that obeyed it fundamentally blind in relation to the contradictions of the opposing reality [54], to contradictions in the composition of real facts themselves, in the sphere of material (economic) relations between classes. She made him blind to the very essence of the revolutionary crisis that has matured in the country, in the system of relations between people. The materialist dialectic of Marx aimed at the analysis of these contradictory relations by the revolutionary thinking. Mach's idealistic metaphysics directly averted his gaze from such an analysis. Lenin saw clearly that a revolutionary who adopted such a logic of thinking inevitably turns from a revolutionary into a kind of capricious being, ignoring the real contradictions of life and trying to impose his arbitrary will on her. And he began to patiently explain to Bogdanov, and Lunacharsky, and to all their like-minded people, what kind of philosophy they were captured, what terrible infection had penetrated into their brain.

The scheme of thought Maha is the scheme (logic) of thinking of the fundamental empiricist, seeking to transform the features of a historically limited mode of thinking in the universal definition of thinking in General. This scheme reflects perfectly the mindset of a troubled revolution, the petty-bourgeois Philistine preoccupied one - how to maintain balance within his little world, or restore this balance if it is shaken, to restore their lost comfort, both material and spiritual, by eliminating from it all contrary elements. At any cost, by any means.
The trouble is, if the schema of this thinking gets in the head of the revolutionary and begin to lead them. The man in the street, completely lost his balance, then turns in the enraged petty bourgeois, the "leftist" and like him a revolutionary and the leader of such "leftists". Or, losing his balance, he begins to seek release not in the "R-R-revolutionary" freaking out and in the quiet lunacy of religious quest, looking for a kind little God.

When the fetishized science and scientific thinking lead to immoral conclusions, to justify violence and cruelty, causing terror among the adept of such thinking, the scientist turns on the waterworks and begins to look for salvation in the abstract, is meaningless, but "humane" ideals, pricked its romantic, but, alas, fruitless nobility.

The principle of economy of thinking, if he really put "the basis of the theory of knowledge", can not lead to anything other than subjective idealism. "Economically" just "think" that only I exist and my feelings, is undeniable, since we are made in epistemology in such a ridiculous concept.
"More economical" to "think" the atom is indivisible or consists of positive and negative electrons? "Economically" possible to think of the Russian bourgeois revolution carried out by the liberals or conducted against the liberals? Enough to put a question to see the absurdity, the subjectivism of applying the category here of "economy of thinking".

It is easy to see that the main difficulty {and therefore the main problem of philosophy} is not to distinguish and oppose each other everything that is "in the minds of individuals" - all that is outside this individual consciousness (this is almost always easy to do), but to delimit the world of collectively professed views, i.e., the whole socially organised world of intellectual culture with all sustainable and tangible fixed universal schemes, its structure, its organization - and the real, material world as he exists outside and apart from its expression in these socially legitimated forms of "experience", in the objective forms of the "spirit".
Here, and only here, the distinction between "ideal" from the "real" (material) and acquires a serious scientific meaning - and precisely because in practice the mass of the people confuse one with the other, taking one thing for another with the same ease with which they take the "wishful thinking", and what things have done and are doing themselves, their own forms of things... In these cases, an indication of the fact, what is known thing and the form of the thing exist outside the individual consciousness and do not depend on individual will still does not solve the question of their objectivity in its serious materialistic sense. Conversely, not everything that people do not know, do not realize, do not perceive as the forms of external things, is a fiction, a fiction of the imagination, existing only in their minds view. Because of this, just the same "reasonable person" to the concepts which Kant appeals with his example of the talers, and often falls into the illusion of taking collectively professed representation for objective reality, and objective reality disclosed by scientific research, is a subjective fiction, existing only in the minds of "theorists".

Another related and long-established in philosophy and psychology sinonimizat “identity” and “freedom”. Because a person is only where there is freedom. Freedom is genuine, and not imaginary, freedom actual deployment of a person in real life, in relationship with other people, not in conceit, not in pleasure feeling his imaginary originality.
Because of that personality not only occurs, but only maintains itself in a constant expansion of its activity in the expansion of their relationships with other people and things, these mediating relationships. There, where once found, once conquered, once achieved, the ways of life start to become regular stamps, stereotypes, unquestioned and dogmatically fixed dead canons, the identity of the dying alive: without realizing it, she also turns slowly or quickly in a set of such templates, only slightly varying in minor details. And then she sooner or later cease to interest and excite the other person, all other people into something repetitive and familiar, something normal, and in the end, in something boring, into something for another person indifferent, impersonal - into a living corpse. Mental (personal) death often occurs because of this far before the physical death of a person and the former person, who has become immobile mummy, can bring people grief even more than his natural death.