Abstract

The problem considered in the article that follows has a long and complicated history. The many different solutions proposed reflect the process of development, deepening, and broadening of knowledge as a whole. They correspond to particular levels of knowledge, determining the character of thought both of the times and of particular individuals. Specifically, it is the understanding of the essence of contradiction that governs the entire theoretical exposition that follows, its substance and approximation to truth. Here we shall consider for analysis only one aspect of this fundamental theme — dialectical contradiction in the evolution of knowledge. Thus, for the most part the discussion will be of the laws of thought; only when necessary will we turn to analysis of contradictions in the objective world. It is quite understandable that the process of thought should occur according to the same, more general laws that are operative in the objective world; nevertheless, the manifestation of these laws has its own special features. Therefore, the questions posed by philosophers of antiquity concerning the degree to which reality itself corresponds to the understanding thereof in terms of the exactness, comprehensiveness, and depth of reflection of the objective world by a subject have not lost their timeliness. Such questions include those associated with the phenomenon of contradiction. For example, is contradiction in thought adequate to the contradictions among things ? How does contradiction in thought take shape, and what are its forms and structures? Is the relationship between opposites always a contradiction? Is it possible to solve antinomies, and so forth? An extensive literature has been published on these subjects. There is hardly a philosopher who can avoid them and not express his attitude toward them. As it is impossible, within the confines of an article, to adduce a full list of published works on contradictions, the authors, with an eye to what has been achieved in this sphere, also regard it as undesirable to analyze the diversity of points of view, and will confine themselves to presenting their own understanding of the problem under consideration