THE PROBLEM OF JUSTIFYING KNOWLEDGE IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF XVII-XVIII CC
In the early forms of empiricism (Bacon) and rationalism (Descartes), two procedures: explanations as to how it is possible to obtain new knowledge and to find reliable knowledge in terms of content - do not differ. The problem of justification of knowledge becomes a problem of the method of obtaining true and necessary knowledge. In empirical, it’s induction, in rationalism, it’s derivation. In the future, Locke (empirical) and Leibniz (rationalism), clearly or implicitly, share in the justification the origin and criterion of the truth of scientific ideas. In explaining the essential characteristics of knowledge, rationalism successfully justified the universality and necessity of knowledge, drawing it out of pure thinking. However, the limited number of root causes and the inability, through deductive logic, to go beyond already known information contradicted the growth of knowledge. Empirical in induction found a method of obtaining new knowledge, but could not explain the necessity and universality of the provisions of science.