Systems theory was first applied in the exact sciences and technology. Application of systems theory in management in the late 50s. XX century was the most important contribution of the school of management science. In the development of quality assurance throughout the 20th century. the most important basic framework was the systems approach. In the latest version of the ISO 9000 series standards, one of the principles is a systematic approach to managing the activities of an enterprise (organization).

Let's consider the terms and definitions of the concept “system”. The Russian language dictionary gives this interpretation of the term.

A system is a set of elements that are in relationships and connections with each other and form a certain integrity, unity.

The modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language gives a translation from Greek and several different interpretations of this definition.

System (from Greek. systerna) - a whole, a compound made up of parts.

Dictionaries also give several more options for this definition:

• a certain order based on the systematic arrangement and mutual connection of parts of something;
• device, structure, representing a unity of regularly located, mutually connected parts;
• a technical device representing a set of mutually interconnected structures, machines, mechanisms that serve one purpose;
• a set of any elements, units, parts, united by a common characteristic or purpose;
• a set of principles underlying any doctrine, worldview, etc.;
• a set of methods, techniques, rules for doing something;
• classification, grouping;
• form, method, principle of device, organization of production of something.

General management specialists give the following definition of a system.

A system is a certain integrity consisting of interdependent parts, each of which contributes to the characteristics of the whole.

As follows from the above definitions, the concept of “system” is quite multifaceted. In relation to managing the activities of an organization, the most preferable is to understand the system as interacting, interconnected parts (principles, rules, methods, etc.) that make up (create) a single integrity.

Systems are divided into two main types: closed and open. A closed system has rigid, fixed boundaries. Its actions are relatively independent of the environment surrounding the system. An open system is characterized by interaction with the external environment. Energy, information, materials are objects of exchange with the external environment through the permeable boundaries of the system. Such a system is not self-sustaining. It depends on objects coming from outside. In addition, an open system has the ability to adapt to changes in the external environment and must do so in order to continue to function. An example of an organization as an open system is shown in Fig. 2.1.

Rice. 2.1

The organization receives information, materials, finances, and human resources from the environment. These components represent inputs to the transformation process. During the transformation process, the organization processes these inputs, converting them into products and/or services. Products and/or services are the outputs of an organization's process that it transfers to the environment. How the control process is implemented in such a system is shown in Fig. 2.2.

Rice. 2.2.

The systems approach is a direction of research methodology, which is based on considering an object as an integral set of elements in a set of relationships and connections between them, i.e. considering an object as a system.

Speaking about a systems approach, we can talk about a certain way of organizing our actions, which covers any type of activity, identifying patterns and relationships in order to use them more effectively.

Basic principles of the systems approach:

• integrity, allowing us to simultaneously consider the system as a single whole and at the same time as a subsystem for higher levels;
• hierarchical structure, i.e. the presence of a plurality (at least two) of elements arranged on the basis of the subordination of lower-level elements to higher-level elements. The implementation of this principle is clearly visible in the example of any specific organization. As you know, any organization is an interaction of two subsystems: the managing and the managed. One is subordinate to the other;
• structuring, allowing you to analyze the elements of the system and their relationships within a specific organizational structure. As a rule, the process of functioning of a system is determined not so much by the properties of its individual elements as by the properties of the structure itself;
• plurality, allowing the use of many cybernetic, economic and mathematical models to describe individual elements and the system as a whole.

Aspects of the systems approach

A systems approach is an approach in which any system (object) is considered as a set of interconnected elements (components) that has an output (goal), input (resources), communication with the external environment, and feedback. This is the most complex approach. The systems approach is a form of application of the theory of knowledge and dialectics to the study of processes occurring in nature, society, and thinking. Its essence lies in the implementation of the requirements of the general theory of systems, according to which each object in the process of its study should be considered as a large and complex system and at the same time as an element of a more general system.

A detailed definition of a systems approach also includes the mandatory study and practical use of the following eight aspects:

• 1) system-element or system-complex, consisting in identifying the elements that make up a given system. In all social systems one can find material components (means of production and consumer goods), processes (economic, social, political, spiritual, etc.) and ideas, scientifically conscious interests of people and their communities;
• 2) system-structural, which consists in clarifying the internal connections and dependencies between the elements of a given system and allowing one to get an idea of ​​the internal organization (structure) of the object under study;
• 3) system-functional, which involves identifying the functions for which the corresponding objects have been created and exist;
• 4) system-targeted, meaning the need to scientifically determine the goals of the research and their mutual coordination;
• 5) system-resource, which consists in carefully identifying the resources required to solve a particular problem;
• 6) system-integration, consisting in determining the totality of qualitative properties of the system, ensuring its integrity and peculiarity;
• 7) system-communication, meaning the need to identify external connections of a given object with others, i.e. its connections with the environment;
• 8) systemic-historical, which makes it possible to find out the conditions in time for the emergence of the object under study, the stages it has passed through, the current state, as well as possible prospects for development.

Almost all modern sciences are built on a systemic principle.

THE ROLE OF SYSTEMS THINKING IN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

Shchukova Kristina Borisovna
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University

THE ROLE OF SYSTEMS THINKING IN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

Shchukova Kristina Borisovna
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University

The term “systems approach” and “systems thinking” has become widespread in modern technical and scientific literature. This article is devoted to consideration of the essence, basic concepts, principles and properties of the systems approach and thinking, as well as examples of its use in the modern world.

Views on the systems approach

A systems approach is a way of looking at complex problems. American systems theorist Russell Ackoff believed that there are three ways of looking at problems:

1. Problems can be partially solved. To solve the problem, it is enough to find a satisfactory answer.

2. Problems can be fixed. To eliminate the problem and achieve your goals, you need to change the situation so that the problem disappears.

3. Problems can be solved completely. To solve a problem, you need to find the exact answer, just like when solving an equation.

In general, most people solve problems partially, often by dealing with the symptoms of the problem rather than its roots. Sometimes they are forced to make decisions without full knowledge of the problem. A satisfactory answer is not seen as bad, more pragmatic. Sometimes finding a satisfactory solution to a problem results in increased knowledge about the actual problem, which allows one to later find a more satisfactory answer and further increase knowledge about the problem, thus achieving a complete solution to the problem.

Some systems engineers choose a third way of looking at the problem. They seek the best, or optimal, solution to a complex problem by achieving a balance between the interacting components and interrelated processes of a complex problem-solving system that produces the best results.

The systems approach has entered almost every field of activity, including social sciences, life sciences, and also biology, where there are no alternatives to such an approach. In particular, management and organization theory has adopted a systems approach.

The Austrian scientist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, in the introduction to the book General Systems Theory, written in 1968, characterized the systems approach as follows: “A specific goal is given. Finding ways and means to implement it requires a systems specialist or group of specialists who will consider alternative solutions and select the optimal solution with minimal cost and maximum efficiency in huge complex systems of interactions.” He attributed the following elements to the systems approach: theory of classical systems (differential equations), computerization and modeling, classification theory, set theory, graph theory, network theory, cybernetics, information theory, automata theory, game theory, decision theory, mass systems theory services and models in natural language.

The role of the systems approach in modern science

Modern research shows that a systems approach plays an important role in the correct formulation of scientific problems. However, the use of a systematic approach to solving already posed problems is less effective compared to directly setting problems. This is due to the lack of universal and effective methods for solving problems in the systems approach. Therefore, if we consider any systemic research, then the systemic formulation of problems is further based on non-systemic means of research. In addition, the systematic approach plays a minor role in organizing the research process. However, the systems approach makes a significant contribution to solving problems that are associated with the methodological self-awareness of science and the use of methodological tools. Most of the methodological literature on the systems approach is devoted to this problem.

Systems approach in systems engineering

According to the essence of the systems approach lies in identifying and understanding complex problems and opportunities, synthesizing possible alternatives; analysis and selection of the best alternatives; implementation and approval of the solution, as well as the creation, use and support of engineered system solutions. Active participation of stakeholders in all systems approach activities is key to the success of the systems approach. In the context of engineering systems, a systems approach is a holistic approach that covers the entire life cycle of a system. However, it is usually applied at the development, operation and maintenance stages of the life cycle.

Figure 1 presents a high-level structure of activities and principles, combined based on the components of the systems approach. Successful systems practices involve applying systems thinking not only to the system being built, but also to considering the way work is planned and carried out.

Figure 1. Systems engineering and systems thinking

The systems approach is closely related to systems thinking and how systems thinking helps guide systems activities. In the systems approach, a system can be considered in the form of a “holon” ​​- an entity that itself is a whole system that interacts with other holons in the external environment.

Thus, a systems approach can be characterized by the way problems, solutions, and the actual problem-solving process are viewed:

It includes the following:

• looking at problems holistically, establishing the boundaries of the problem by understanding the natural relationships of the system and trying to prevent undesirable consequences;
• creating solutions based on fundamental system principles, in particular creating system structures that will reduce the complexity of the organization and the number of undesirable emerging properties of the system;
• understanding, evaluating, and applying models both when considering a problem and creating a solution, taking into account the limitations of such models and representations.

According to the following main groups of methodologies:

• Hard systems methodologies are aimed at selecting effective means to achieve predetermined and agreed upon goals;
• Soft systems methodologies are interactive and participatory approaches that assist groups of individual participants to alleviate a complex problem situation of interest;
• Critical systems thinking methodologies aim to create an environment in which appropriate soft and hard methods can be applied depending on the situation being studied.

British scientist Peter Checkland proposed the following classification of the methodology of rigid systems:

• Systems analysis is a systematic assessment of the costs and other consequences of fulfilling a specific requirement in various ways.
• Systems engineering is a set of activities aimed at creating a complex man-made object and (or) procedures, as well as information flows associated with its operation.

Initially, systems engineering was aimed at creating, modifying and maintaining rigid systems. Subsequently, systems engineering incorporated problem-oriented thinking and flexible approaches to problem solving.

All of the above hard methods can apply systems thinking to provide complete and viable solutions created as part of the solution optimization process.

Soft systems and problem-oriented methods

Problem-focused methods are interactive approaches that assist groups of diverse participants to alleviate a complex problem situation of interest.

The creation of a range of hard and soft methods usually leads to the question of which method to use in particular circumstances. Critical systems thinking is aimed at solving this issue.

Principles of systems thinking

The basic principles of systems thinking are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Basic principles of systems thinking

There are systems thinking tools:

1. Causality diagram notation.

2. Stream and Accumulator Diagram.

The causal loop diagram is an important tool for representing the feedback structure of systems. This chart is suitable for:

• quickly fixing hypotheses about the causes of dynamics;
• identifying and shaping mental models of individuals or groups;
• Discussion of important feedbacks.

A cause-and-effect diagram consists of variables connected by arrows indicating the cause-and-effect relationship between them. The diagram also contains important feedback loops.

Each cause-and-effect relationship is associated with a polarity, either positive or negative, to indicate how the dependent variable changes when the independent variables change.

Causal loop diagrams are suitable for representing interdependencies and feedback processes.

They are effective to use at the beginning of a modeling project to obtain a mental model. However, such diagrams have a number of limitations. The main limitation of such diagrams is the inability to obtain the structure of threads and drives of the system. Flows and accumulators, including feedback, are central concepts in dynamic systems theory.

The structure of drives and streams consists of the following elements:

• The drives are presented in the form of rectangles.
• Incoming streams are represented by an arrow pointing towards the drive.
• Outgoing flows are depicted as arrows directed away from the drive.
• Regulators control flows.
• Clouds represent sources of flows.

Influence diagrams as well as circular causality diagrams help in studying the complexity of systems. Often, an influence diagram is an effective tool for identifying the appropriate system for the problem under study.

However, in some cases, an influence diagram is not a suitable tool for unambiguously and accurately defining the structure of a decision-making problem. In this case, you can use other types of diagrams to look at the problem and its structure in more detail.

Flowcharts are another type of diagram that allows you to represent specific aspects of a system, particularly the logical and time sequence of some process, operation, or activity. A process may be a temporary flow of material passing through a system. It may reflect the way information is processed and used, the time sequence in which tasks must be performed to complete a project or the logical sequence, and checks in the process of making complex decisions.

1. I.V. Blauberg, E.G. Yudin. Formation and essence of the systems approach. – M.: Nauka, 1973. – 271 p.
2. Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge. Systems Thinking [Electronic resource]. URL: http://sebokwiki.org/wiki/Systems_Thinking (access date: 12/21/2015).
3. Leveson. Engineering To A Safer World. Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. – The MIT Press Cambridge, 2011. – 555 p.
4. Alexander Kossiakoff, William N. Sweet, Samuel J. Seymour, Steven M. Biemer. Systems Engineering: Principles and Practices. – John Willey & Sons, 2011. – 559 p.
5. Derek K. Hitchins. Systems Engineering. A 21st Century Systems Methodology. – John Willey & Sons, 2007. – 532 p.
6. John Boardman, Brian Sauser. Systems Thinking: Coping With 21st Century Problems. – CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, 2004 – 242 p.
7. Lars Skyttner. General Systems Theory. – World Scientific Publishing, 2005. – 535 p.
8. John D. Sterman. Business Dynamics Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. – The MIT Press, McGraw-Hill Companies, 2000. – 1008 p.
9. Hans G. Daellenbach, Donald C. McNickl. Management Science. Decision Making Through System Thinking. – PALGRAVE MACMILLAN. – 2005, 615 p.

Systems approach

Systems approach- direction of the methodology of scientific knowledge, which is based on the consideration of an object as a system: an integral complex of interconnected elements (I. V. Blauberg, V. N. Sadovsky, E. G. Yudin); sets of interacting objects (L. von Bertalanffy); sets of entities and relationships (Hall A.D., Fagin R.I., late Bertalanffy).

Speaking about a systems approach, we can talk about a certain way of organizing our actions, one that covers any type of activity, identifying patterns and relationships in order to use them more effectively. At the same time, the systems approach is not so much a method of solving problems as a method of setting problems. As they say, “A question asked correctly is half the answer.” This is a qualitatively higher way of cognition than just an objective one.

Basic principles of the systems approach

• Integrity, which allows us to simultaneously consider the system as a single whole and at the same time as a subsystem for higher levels.
• Hierarchical structure, that is, the presence of a set (at least two) elements arranged on the basis of the subordination of lower-level elements to higher-level elements. The implementation of this principle is clearly visible in the example of any specific organization. As you know, any organization is an interaction of two subsystems: the managing and the managed. One is subordinate to the other.
• Structuring, allowing you to analyze the elements of the system and their relationships within a specific organizational structure. As a rule, the process of functioning of a system is determined not so much by the properties of its individual elements as by the properties of the structure itself.
• Plurality, which allows the use of many cybernetic, economic and mathematical models to describe individual elements and the system as a whole.
• Systematicity, the property of an object to have all the characteristics of a system.

Basic definitions of the systems approach

The founders of the systems approach are: L. von Bertalanffy, A. A. Bogdanov, G. Simon, P. Drucker, A. Chandler.

• A system is a set of interconnected elements that form integrity or unity.
• Structure is a way of interaction of system elements through certain connections (a picture of connections and their stabilities).
• A process is a dynamic change of a system over time.
• Function - the operation of an element in the system.
• State is the position of the system relative to its other positions.
• A system effect is the result of a special reorganization of system elements, when the whole becomes greater than the simple sum of its parts.
• Structural optimization is a targeted iterative process of obtaining a series of system effects in order to optimize an application goal within given constraints. Structural optimization is practically achieved using a special algorithm for the structural reorganization of system elements. A series of simulation models have been developed to demonstrate the phenomenon of structural optimization and for training.

Basic assumptions of the systems approach

1. There are systems in the world
2. System description is true
3. Systems interact with each other, and, therefore, everything in this world is interconnected
4. Therefore the world is also a system

Aspects of the systems approach

A systems approach is an approach in which any system (object) is considered as a set of interconnected elements (components) that has an output (goal), input (resources), communication with the external environment, and feedback. This is the most complex approach. The systems approach is a form of application of the theory of knowledge and dialectics to the study of processes occurring in nature, society, and thinking. Its essence lies in the implementation of the requirements of the general theory of systems, according to which each object in the process of its study should be considered as a large and complex system and, at the same time, as an element of a more general system.

A detailed definition of a systems approach also includes the mandatory study and practical use of the following eight aspects:

1. system-element or system-complex, consisting in identifying the elements that make up a given system. In all social systems one can find material components (means of production and consumer goods), processes (economic, social, political, spiritual, etc.) and ideas, scientifically-conscious interests of people and their communities;
2. system-structural, which consists in clarifying the internal connections and dependencies between the elements of a given system and allowing one to get an idea of ​​the internal organization (structure) of the system under study;
3. system-functional, which involves identifying the functions for which the corresponding systems have been created and exist;
4. system-target, meaning the need for scientific determination of the goals and subgoals of the system, their mutual coordination with each other;
5. system-resource, which consists in carefully identifying the resources required for the functioning of the system, for the system to solve a particular problem;
6. system-integration, consisting in determining the totality of qualitative properties of the system, ensuring its integrity and peculiarity;
7. system-communication, meaning the need to identify the external connections of a given system with others, that is, its connections with the environment;
8. systemic-historical, which makes it possible to find out the conditions in time for the emergence of the system under study, the stages it has passed through, the current state, as well as possible prospects for development.

Almost all modern sciences are built on a systemic principle. An important aspect of the systematic approach is the development of a new principle for its use - the creation of a new, unified and more optimal approach (general methodology) to cognition, for applying it to any cognizable material, with the guaranteed goal of obtaining the most complete and holistic understanding of this material.

see also

Literature

• A. I. Rakitov “Philosophical problems of science: Systematic approach” Moscow: Mysl, 1977, 270 p.
• V. N. Sadovsky “Systems approach and general theory of systems: status, main problems and development prospects” Moscow: Nauka, 1980.
• Systems research. Yearbook. Moscow: Nauka, 1969-1983.
• Philosophical and methodological studies of technical sciences. - Questions of Philosophy, 1981, No. 10, p. 172-180.
• I. V. Blauberg, V. N. Sadovsky, E. G. Yudin “Systems approach in modern science” - In the book: Problems of methodology for systems research. M.: Mysl, 1970, p. 7-48.
• I. V. Blauberg, V. N. Sadovsky, E. G. Yudin “Philosophical principle of systematicity and systems approach” - Issue. Philosophy, 1978, No. 8, p. 39-52.
• G. P. Shchedrovitsky “Principles and general scheme of methodological organization of system-structural research and development” - M.: Nauka, 1981, p. 193-227.
• V. A. Lektorsky, V. N. Sadovsky “On the principles of systems research

(in connection with the “general theory of systems” by L. Bertalanffy)” - Vopr. Philosophy, 1960, No. 8, p. 67-79.

• Savelyev A.V. Ontological extension of the theory of functional systems // Journal of problems in the evolution of open systems, Kazakhstan, Almaty, 2005, No. 1(7), p. 86-94.
• Savelyeva T. S., Savelyev A. V. Difficulties and limitations of the systems approach in brain science // in collection. materials XI International. conference on neurocybernetics “Problems of neurocybernetics”. Rostov-on-Don, 1995, p. 208-209.

Links

• Agoshkova E.B., Akhlibinsky B.V. Evolution of the concept of a system // Questions of philosophy. - 1998. - No. 7. - P. 170-179.
• Sidorov S. V. Rules for implementing a systematic approach in managing a developing school // Electronic magazine “Knowledge. Understanding. Skill ». - 2010. - No. 2 - Pedagogy. Psychology.
• Systems approach // Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
• Joseph O'Connor The Art of Systems Thinking. - 2008.
• Joseph O'Connor, Ian McDermott The Art of Systems Thinking: Essential Skills for Creativity and Problem Solving // "Alpina Publisher". - M., 2011. - No. 978-5-9614-1589-6.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what a “Systems approach” is in other dictionaries:

The direction of methodology is specifically scientific. cognition and social practice, which is based on the study of objects as systems. SP contributes to the adequate formulation of problems in specific sciences and the development of effective strategies for them... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

systems approach- SYSTEM APPROACH is a direction of philosophy and methodology of science, specifically scientific knowledge and social practice, which is based on the study of objects as systems. S. p. focuses the research on revealing the integrity of the object and... ... Encyclopedia of Epistemology and Philosophy of Science

SYSTEMS APPROACH- a direction in the methodology of scientific knowledge and social practice, which is based on the study of an object as a system. A systematic approach contributes to the adequate formulation of problems in specific sciences and the development of an effective strategy for them... ... Ecological dictionary

In cultural studies methodol. the basis of cultural studies as a science. Aimed at integration research. material accumulated by decomposition areas of humanities involved in the study of culture (philosophy of culture, theory of culture,... ... Encyclopedia of Cultural Studies

SYSTEMS APPROACH- a set of ways to consider the connections and integrity of complex systems. SP is the subject of the special scientific discipline of general systems theory. Management can be defined as the ordering of a system. S.p. (or system analysis) appeared... ... Russian encyclopedia of labor protection

systems approach- Study of the functional and structural relationships of natural phenomena, considered as a system in which the boundaries, possibilities of use, as well as the position and role in the next-ranking natural system are determined. Syn.:… … Dictionary of Geography

The direction of the methodology of scientific knowledge and social practice, which is based on the consideration of objects as systems; The study focuses on revealing the integrity of the object, identifying the diverse types of connections in it and bringing them together into... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

English systemanalyse; German Systemmethod. The direction of scientific research methodology, which is based on the consideration of a complex object as an integral set of elements in a set of relationships and connections between them. Antinazi. Encyclopedia... ... Encyclopedia of Sociology

SYSTEMS APPROACH- SYSTEMS APPROACH. A method of scientific knowledge, which is based on the consideration of objects as systems; involves the analysis of phenomena as a complex unity that cannot be reduced to a simple sum of elements. S. p. replaced the widespread one in... ... New dictionary of methodological terms and concepts (theory and practice of language teaching)

The direction of scientific research methodology, which is based on the consideration of a complex object as an integral set of elements in a set of relationships and connections between them. Dictionary of business terms. Akademik.ru. 2001... Dictionary of business terms

Educational Institution "Belarusian State University of Informatics and Radioelectronics"

Department of Philosophy

System Approach in Modern Science and Technology

(abstract)

Ivanov I.I.

postgraduate student of the Department of XXX

Introduction........................................................ ........................................... 3

1 The concept of “system” and “system approach”.................................................. 5

2 Ontological meaning of the concept “system”.................................................. 8

3 Epistemological meaning of the concept “system”.................................................. 10

4 Development of the essence of the system in the natural sciences.................................. 12

5 “System” and “system approach” in our time.................................... 14

Conclusion................................................. ..................................... 26

Literature................................................. ..................................... 29

Introduction

More than half a century of systemic movement initiated by L. von Bertalanffy has passed. During this time, the ideas of systematicity, the concept of a system and the systems approach have received universal recognition and widespread use. Numerous system concepts have been created.

A closer analysis shows that many of the issues considered in the systems movement belong not only to science, such as the general theory of systems, but cover a vast area of ​​scientific knowledge as such. The systems movement has affected all aspects of scientific activity, and an increasing number of arguments are being put forward in its defense.

The basis of the systems approach, as a methodology of scientific knowledge, is the study of objects as systems. A systematic approach contributes to an adequate and effective disclosure of the essence of problems and their successful solution in various fields of science and technology.

The systematic approach is aimed at identifying the diverse types of connections of a complex object and reducing them into a single theoretical picture.

In various fields of science, problems of the organization and functioning of complex objects are beginning to occupy a central place, the study of which without taking into account all aspects of their functioning and interaction with other objects and systems is simply unthinkable. Moreover, many of these objects represent a complex combination of various subsystems, each of which, in turn, is also a complex object.

The systems approach does not exist in the form of strict methodological concepts. It fulfills its heuristic functions while remaining a set of cognitive principles, the main meaning of which is to appropriately orient specific studies.

The advantages of the systems approach are, first of all, that it expands the scope of knowledge compared to what existed before. A systematic approach, based on the search for mechanisms of the integrity of an object and identifying the technology of its connections, allows us to explain the essence of many things in a new way. The breadth of the principles and basic concepts of the systems approach puts them in close connection with other methodological areas of modern science.

1 The concept of “system” and “system approach”

As stated above, the systems approach is currently used in almost all areas of science and technology: cybernetics, for the analysis of various biological systems and systems of human influence on nature, for the construction of transport control systems, space flights, various systems of organization and production management, theory building information systems, in many others, and even in psychology.

Biology was one of the first sciences in which objects of study began to be considered as systems. The systems approach in biology involves a hierarchical structure, where the elements are a system (subsystem) that interacts with other systems as part of a larger system (supersystem). At the same time, the sequence of changes in a large system is based on patterns in a hierarchically subordinate structure, where “cause-and-effect relationships run from top to bottom, setting essential properties to those below.” In other words, the whole variety of connections in living nature is studied, and at each level of biological organization its own special leading connections are identified. The idea of ​​biological objects as systems allows for a new approach to some problems, such as the development of certain aspects of the problem of the relationship between an individual and the environment, and also gives impetus to the neo-Darwinian concept, sometimes referred to as macroevolution.

If we turn to social philosophy, then here too the analysis of the main problems of this area leads to questions about society as an integrity, or more precisely, about its systematicity, about the criteria for dividing historical reality, about the elements of society as a system.

The popularity of the systems approach is facilitated by the rapid increase in the number of developments in all areas of science and technology, when a researcher, using standard methods of research and analysis, is physically unable to cope with such a volume of information. It follows from this that only using the systemic principle can one understand the logical connections between individual facts, and only this principle will allow for more successful and high-quality design of new research.

At the same time, the importance of the concept of “system” is very great in modern philosophy, science and technology. Along with this, recently there has been an increasing need to develop a unified approach to various systemic studies in modern scientific knowledge. Most researchers probably realize that there is still some real commonality in this variety of directions, which should follow from a common understanding of the system. However, the reality is that a unified understanding of the system has not yet been developed.

If we consider the history of the development of definitions of the concept “system”, we can see that each of them reveals a new side of its rich content. In this case, two main groups of definitions are distinguished. One gravitates towards a philosophical understanding of the concept of a system, the other group of definitions is based on the practical use of system methodology and gravitates towards the development of a general scientific concept of a system.

Works in the field of theoretical foundations of systems research cover such problems as:

· ontological foundations of systematic research of objects of the world, systematicity as the essence of the world;

· epistemological foundations of systemic research, systemic principles and principles of the theory of knowledge;

· methodological establishments of systemic cognition.

The mixture of these three aspects sometimes creates a feeling of contradiction in the works of different authors. This also determines the inconsistency and multiplicity of definitions of the very concept of “system”. Some authors develop it in an ontological sense, others in an epistemological sense, and in different aspects of epistemology, and still others in a methodological one.

The second characteristic feature of systemic problems is that throughout the development of philosophy and science in the development and application of the concept of “system”, three directions are clearly distinguished: one is associated with the use of the term “system” and its non-rigorous interpretation: the other is with the development of the essence of the system concept , however, as a rule, without using this term: the third - with an attempt to synthesize the concept of systematicity with the concept of “system” in its strict definition.

At the same time, historically there has always been a duality of interpretation, depending on whether the consideration is being carried out from ontological or epistemological positions. Therefore, the initial basis for developing a unified system concept, including the concept of “system,” is, first of all, the division of all issues in historical consideration according to the principle of their belonging to ontological, epistemological and methodological foundations.

2 Ontological meaning of the concept “system”

When describing reality in Ancient Greece and, in fact, until the 19th century. in science there was no clear separation between reality itself and its ideal, mental, rational representation. The ontological aspect of reality and the epistemological aspect of knowledge about this reality were identified in the sense of absolute correspondence. Therefore, the very long use of the term “system” had a pronounced ontological meaning.

In Ancient Greece, the meaning of this word was associated primarily with social and everyday activities and was used to mean structure, organization, union, system, etc. Further, the same term is transferred to natural objects. The universe, philological and musical combinations, etc.

It is important that the formation of the concept of “system” from the term “system” comes through the awareness of the integrity and dismemberment of both natural and artificial objects. This was expressed in the interpretation of the system as “a whole made up of parts.”

Virtually without interruption, this line of awareness of systems as integral and at the same time dissected fragments of the real world goes through the New Age, the philosophy of R. Descartes and B. Spinoza, French materialists, natural science of the 19th century, being a consequence of the spatial-mechanical vision of the world, when all other forms reality (light, electromagnetic fields) were considered only as an external manifestation of the spatial-mechanical properties of this reality.

In fact, this approach provides for a certain primary dismemberment of the whole, which in turn is composed of entities separated (spatially) by nature itself and in interaction. In the same sense, the term “system” is widely used today. It was precisely this understanding of the system that gave rise to the term material system as an integral set of material objects.

Another direction of the ontological line involves the use of the term “system” to denote integrity, defined by some organizing community of this whole.

In the ontological approach, two directions can be distinguished: the system as a set of objects and the system as a set of properties.

In general, the use of the term “system” in the ontological aspect is unproductive for further study of the object. The ontological line connected the understanding of the system with the concept of “thing,” be it “an organic thing” or “a thing made up of things.” The main drawback in the ontological line of understanding the system is the identification of the concept “system” with an object or simply with a fragment of reality. In fact, the use of the term “system” in relation to a material object is incorrect, since every fragment of reality has an infinite number of manifestations and its knowledge is divided into many aspects. Therefore, even for a naturally dissected object, we can only give a general indication of the fact of the presence of interactions, without specifying them, since it is not clear which properties of the object are involved in the interactions.

The ontological understanding of the system as an object does not allow us to move on to the process of cognition, since it does not provide a research methodology. In this regard, understanding the system solely in the presented aspect is erroneous.

3 Epistemological meaning of the concept “system”

The origins of the epistemological line lie in ancient Greek philosophy and science. This direction gave two branches in developing an understanding of the system. One of them is related to the interpretation of the systematic nature of knowledge itself, first philosophical, then scientific. Another branch was associated with the development of the concepts of “law” and “regularity” as the core of scientific knowledge.

The principles of systematic knowledge were developed in ancient Greek philosophy and science. In fact, Euclid already built his geometry as a system, and it was precisely this presentation that Plato gave it. However, in relation to knowledge, the term “system” was not used by ancient philosophy and science.

Although the term "system" was mentioned as early as 1600, none of the scientists of that time used it. Serious development of the problem of systematic knowledge with the understanding of the concept of “system” began only in the 18th century. At that time, three most important requirements for the systematic nature of knowledge, and therefore the characteristics of a system, were identified:

· completeness of the initial foundations (elements from which other knowledge is derived);

· deducibility (definability) of knowledge;

· integrity of the constructed knowledge.

Moreover, by a system of knowledge, this direction did not mean knowledge about the properties and relationships of reality (all attempts at an ontological understanding of the system are forgotten and excluded from consideration), but as a certain form of organization of knowledge.

Hegel, when developing a universal system of knowledge and a universal system of the world from the standpoint of objective idealism, overcame such a distinction between the ontological and epistemological lines. In general, by the end of the 19th century. The ontological foundations of knowledge are completely discarded, and the system is sometimes considered as the result of the activity of the subject of knowledge.

As a result of the development of the epistemological direction, such features as whole, completeness and deducibility turned out to be firmly associated with the concept of “system”. At the same time, a departure was being prepared from understanding the system as a global embrace of the world or knowledge. The problem of systematic knowledge is gradually narrowing and transforming into the problem of systematic theories, the problem of the completeness of formal theories.

4 Development of the essence of the system in the natural sciences

Not in philosophy, but in science itself there was an epistemological line, which, while developing the essence of understanding the system, for a long time did not use this term at all.

Since its inception, the goal of science has been to find relationships between phenomena, things and their properties. Starting with the mathematics of Pythagoras, through G. Galileo and I. Newton, an understanding is formed in science that the establishment of any pattern includes the following steps:

· finding that set of properties that will be necessary and sufficient to form some relationship, pattern;

· search for the type of mathematical relationship between these properties;

· establishing repeatability and the necessity of this pattern.

The search for that property that should be included in the pattern often lasted for centuries (if not to say millennia). Along with the search for patterns, the question of the foundations of these patterns has always arisen. Since the time of Aristotle, dependence must have had a causal basis, but even Pythagoras’ theorems contained another basis for dependence - interrelationship, interdependence of quantities, which does not contain a causal meaning.

This set of properties included in the pattern forms some single, integral group precisely because it has the property of behaving deterministically. But then this group of properties has the characteristics of a system and is nothing more than a “system of properties” - this is the name it will be given in the 20th century. Only the term “system of equations” has long been firmly established in scientific use. The awareness of any identified dependence as a system of properties occurs when trying to define the concept of “system”. J. Clear defines a system as a set of variables, and in the natural sciences the definition of a dynamic system as a system of equations describing it has become traditional.

It is important that within the framework of this direction, the most important feature of the system has been developed - the sign of self-determination, self-determination of the set of properties included in the pattern.

Thus, as a result of the development of natural sciences, such important features of the system as the completeness of the set of properties and the self-determination of this set were developed.

5 “system” and “system approach” in our time

The epistemological line of interpretation of the systematic nature of knowledge, having significantly developed the meaning of the concept “system” and a number of its most important features, has not taken the path of understanding the systematic nature of the object of knowledge itself. On the contrary, the position is being strengthened that a system of knowledge in any discipline is formed by logical deduction, like mathematics, that we are dealing with a system of statements that has a hypothetic-deductive basis. This led, taking into account the successes of mathematics, to the fact that nature began to be replaced by mathematical models. The possibilities of mathematization determined both the choice of the object of study and the degree of idealization when solving problems.

A way out of this situation was the concept of L. von Bertalanffy, with whose general theory of systems the discussion of the variety of properties of “organic wholes” began. The systemic movement has become essentially an ontological understanding of properties and qualities at different levels of organization and the types of relationships that provide them, and B.S. Fleishman laid the basis for systemology by ordering the principles of increasingly complex behavior: from material-energy balance through homeostasis to purposefulness and long-term activity.

Thus, there is a turn towards the desire to consider the object in all its complexity, multiplicity of properties, qualities and their interrelations. Accordingly, a branch of ontological definitions of the system is formed, which interpret it as an object of reality, endowed with certain “systemic” properties, as an integrity that has some organizing community of this whole. The use of the concept “system” as a complex object of organized complexity is gradually emerging. At the same time, “mathematizability” ceases to be the filter that simplified the task extremely. J. Clear sees the fundamental difference between the classical sciences and the “science of systems” in the fact that systems theory forms the subject of research in the fullness of its natural manifestations, without adapting to the capabilities of the formal apparatus.

For the first time, the discussion of systemic problems was a self-reflection of systemic concepts of science. Unprecedented in scope attempts are beginning to understand the essence of the general theory of systems, systems approach, systems analysis, etc. and above all, to develop the very concept of “system”. In this case, in contrast to centuries-old intuitive use, the main goal is methodological establishments, which should follow from the concept of “system”.

In general, it is characteristic that no explicit attempts are made to derive its epistemological understanding from the ontological understanding of the system. One of the prominent representatives of the understanding of a system as a set of variables representing a set of properties, J. Clear, emphasizes that he leaves aside the question of what scientific theories, philosophy of science or inherited genetic innate knowledge determines the “meaningful choice of properties”. This branch of understanding a system as a set of variables gives rise to mathematical systems theory, where the concept of “system” is introduced through formalization and defined in set-theoretic terms.

Thus, a situation gradually develops that the ontological and epistemological understanding of the system are intertwined. In applied fields, a system is treated as an “integral material object,” and in theoretical fields of science, a system is called a set of variables and a set of differential equations.

The most obvious reason for the inability to achieve a common understanding of the system is the differences that are associated with the answer to the following questions:

1. Does the concept of system refer

· to an object (thing) in general (any or specific),

· to a set of objects (naturally or artificially dissected),

· not to the object (thing), but to the representation of the object,

· to the representation of an object through a set of elements that are in certain relationships,

· to a set of elements that are in a relationship?

2. Is there a requirement for a set of elements to form integrity, unity (defined or not specified)?

3. Is the "whole"

primary in relation to the totality of elements,

· derived from a set of elements?

4. Does the concept of system refer

· to everything that is “differentiated by the researcher as a system”,

· only to such a set that includes a specific “systemic” feature?

5. Everything is a system, or can “non-systems” be considered along with systems?

Depending on one answer or another to these questions, we get many definitions. But if a large number of authors have been defining a system through different characteristics over the course of 50 years, is it still possible to discern something in common in their definitions? To which group of concepts, to which group of categories does the concept “system” belong, if you look at it from the perspective of many existing definitions? It becomes clear that all the authors are talking about the same thing: through the concept of system, they strive to reflect the form of presentation of the subject of scientific knowledge. Moreover, depending on the stage of cognition, we are dealing with different representations of the subject, which means that the definition of the system also changes. Thus, those authors who want to apply this concept to “organic wholes”, to a “thing”, refer it to a selected object of cognition, when the object of cognition has not yet been identified. This corresponds to the very first act of cognitive activity.

The following definition, with some reservations, reflects the very act of identifying the subject of knowledge: “The concept of system stands at the very top of the hierarchy of concepts. A system is everything that we want to consider as a system...”

Further, the statement that a “system” is a list of variables... related to some main problem that has already been defined, allows us to move to the next level, at which a certain side, a slice of the object and a set of properties characterizing this side are highlighted. Those who tend to represent the subject of knowledge in the form of equations come to the definition of a system through a set of equations.

Thus, the multiplicity and diversity of definitions of the system are caused by the difference in the stages of formation of the subject of scientific knowledge.

Thus, we can conclude that the system is a form of representation of the subject of scientific knowledge. And in this sense, it is a fundamental and universal category. All scientific knowledge since its inception in Ancient Greece has built the subject of knowledge in the form of a system.

Numerous discussions regarding all the proposed definitions, as a rule, raised the question: by whom and what are these most important “system-forming”, “definite”, “limiting” features that form the system? It turns out that the answer to these questions is general, if we take into account that the form of representation of the object of knowledge must be correlated with the object of knowledge itself. Consequently, it is the object that will determine the integrative property (selected by the subject) that makes the integrity “definite.” It is in this sense that the proposition that the whole precedes the totality of elements should be interpreted. It follows that the definition of a system must include not only a set, a composition of elements and relationships, but also an integral property of the object itself, in relation to which the system is built.

The principle of systematicity underlies the methodology, expressing the philosophical aspects of the systems approach and serving as the basis for studying the essence and general features of systemic knowledge, its epistemological foundations and categorical-conceptual apparatus, the history of systemic ideas and system-centric methods of thinking, analysis of systemic patterns of various areas of objective reality. In the real process of scientific knowledge of specific scientific and philosophical directions, systemic knowledge complements each other, forming a system of knowledge into systematicity. In the history of knowledge, the identification of systemic features of integral phenomena was associated with the study of the relationship between part and whole, patterns of composition and structure, internal connections and interactions of elements, properties of integration, hierarchy, and subordination. The differentiation of scientific knowledge gives rise to a significant need for a systematic synthesis of knowledge, to overcome disciplinary narrowness generated by subject or methodological specialization of knowledge.

On the other hand, the multiplication of multi-level and multi-order knowledge about a subject determines the need for such a systemic synthesis, which expands the understanding of the subject of knowledge in the study of ever deeper foundations of being and a more systematic study of external interactions. The systematic synthesis of various knowledge, which is a means of long-term planning, foreseeing the results of practical activities, modeling development options and their consequences, etc., is also important.

Summing up, it is clear that in the process of human activity the principle of consistency and the consequences from it are filled with specific practical content, while the implementation of this principle can proceed along the following main strategic directions.

1. Really existing objects, considered as systems, are studied on the basis of a systems approach, by identifying systemic properties and patterns in these objects, which can later be studied (displayed) by private methods of specific sciences.

2. Based on the systems approach, according to the a priori definition of the system, which is refined iteratively during the research process, a system model of a real object is built. This model subsequently replaces the real object during the research process. At the same time, the study of a system model can be implemented on the basis of both systemological concepts and private methods of specific sciences.

3. A set of system models, considered separately from the objects being modeled, can itself constitute an object of scientific research. At the same time, the most general invariants, methods of constructing and functioning of system models are considered, and the scope of their application is determined.

So, for example, we use the definition presented in: “A system” is a set of interconnected components of one nature or another, ordered by relationships that have well-defined properties; this set is characterized by unity, which is expressed in the integral properties and functions of the set. Accordingly, we note that firstly: any system consists of initial units - components. Objects, properties, connections, relationships, states, phases of functioning, stages of development can be considered as components of a system. Within this system and at this level of abstraction, components are presented as indivisible, integral and distinguishable units, that is, the researcher abstracts from their internal structure, but retains information about their empirical properties.

The objects that make up a system can be material (for example, atoms that make up molecules, cells that make up organs) or ideal (for example, different types of number make up the elements of a theoretical system called number theory).

System properties specific to a given class of objects can become components of system analysis. For example, the properties of a thermodynamic system can be temperature, pressure, volume, and the field strength, dielectric constant of the medium, polarization of the dielectric are essentially properties of electrostatic systems. Properties can be either changing or unchanged under the given conditions of existence of the system. Properties can be internal (own) and external. Intrinsic properties depend only on the connections (interactions) within the system; these are the properties of the system “in itself.” External properties actually exist only when there are connections and interactions with external objects (systems).

The connections of the object under study can also be components in its system analysis. The connections have a material-energy, substantial character. Similar to properties, connections can be internal and external to a given system. So, if we describe the mechanical movement of a body as a dynamic system, then in relation to this body the connections are external. If we consider a larger system of several interacting bodies, then the same mechanical connections should be considered internal in relation to this system.

Relationships differ from connections in that they do not have a pronounced material-energy character. Nevertheless, taking them into account is important for understanding a particular system. For example, spatial relationships (above, below, to the left, to the right), temporal (earlier, later), quantitative (less, more).

States and phases of functioning are used in the analysis of systems operating over a long period of time, and the process of functioning itself (the sequence of states over time) is known by identifying connections and relationships between different states. Examples include phases of the heart rate, alternating processes of excitation and inhibition in the cerebral cortex, etc.

In turn, stages, stages, steps, levels of development act as components of genetic systems. If states and phases of functioning refer to the behavior over time of a system that maintains its qualitative certainty, then a change in stages of development is associated with the transition of the system to a new quality.

Secondly, between the components of the set that forms the system, there are system-forming connections and relationships, thanks to which the unity specific to the system is realized. The system has general functions, integral properties and characteristics that neither its constituent elements, taken separately, nor a simple “arithmetic sum” of elements possess. An important characteristic of the internal integrity of a system is its autonomy or relative independence of behavior and existence. By the degree of autonomy one can to a certain extent judge the level and degree of their relative organization and self-organization.

Important characteristics of any systems are their inherent organization and structure, to which the mathematical description of systems is tied.

To emphasize the validity of the above reasoning, we will use the definition given in the work, according to which: “A system is a set of interconnected elements that form a single whole.”

Regarding the relativity of the concepts “component” (“element”) and “system” (“structure”), it should be noted that any system can, in turn, act as a component or subsystem of another system. On the other hand, components that appear in the analysis of a system as undivided wholes, upon a more detailed examination, themselves manifest themselves as systems. In any case, the connections between elements within a subsystem are stronger than the connections between subsystems, and stronger than the connections between elements belonging to different subsystems. It is also important that the number of types of elements (subsystems) is limited; the internal diversity and complexity of the system is determined, as a rule, by the variety of inter-element connections, and not by the variety of element types.

When analyzing any systems, it is important to find out the nature of the connection between subsystems and hierarchical levels within the system; the system combines the interconnection of its subsystems in some properties and relationships and relative independence in other properties and relationships. In self-governing systems, this is expressed, in particular, in the combination of centralization of the activities of all subsystems with the help of a central management authority with the decentralization of the activities of levels and subsystems that have relative autonomy.

It should also be taken into account that a complex system is the result of the evolution of a simpler system. A system cannot be studied unless its genesis is studied.

In other words, knowledge of an object as a system should include the following main points: 1) determination of the structure and organization of the system; 2) determination of the system’s own (internal) integral properties and functions; 3) defining the functions of the system as reactions at the outputs in response to the influence of other objects on the inputs; 4) determination of the genesis of the system, i.e. methods and mechanisms of its formation, and for developing systems - ways of their further development.

A particularly important characteristic of a system is its structure. A unified description of systems in a structural language presupposes certain simplifications and abstractions. If, when determining the components of a system, one can abstract from their structure, considering them as undifferentiated units, then the next step is to abstract from the empirical properties of the components, from their nature (physical, biological, etc.) while maintaining differences in quality.

The methods of communication and types of relationships between the components of the system depend both on the nature of the components and on the conditions of existence of the system. The concept of structure is specific to a special and at the same time universal type of relationships and connections - the relationship of composition of elements. Relations of order (orderliness) in a system exist in two forms: stable and unstable in relation to precisely defined conditions of existence of the system. The concept of structure reflects stable order. The structure of a system is a set of stable connections and relationships that are invariant with respect to well-defined changes and transformations of the system. The choice of these transformations depends on the boundaries and conditions of existence of the system. The structures of objects (systems) of a particular class are described in the form of laws of their structure, behavior and development.

We also note that when one or more elements are removed from the system, the structure may remain unchanged, and the system may retain its qualitative certainty (in particular, operability). In some cases, removed elements can be replaced with new ones of different quality without damage. This shows the predominance of internal structural connections over external ones. The structure does not exist as an organizing principle independent of the elements, but is itself determined by its constituent elements. A set of elements cannot be combined in an arbitrary way; therefore, the way the elements are connected (the structure of the future system) is partially determined by the properties of the elements taken to build it. For example, the structure of a molecule is determined (in part) by what atoms it is made of. The entry of an element into a higher-level structure has little effect on its internal structure. The nucleus of an atom does not change if the atom becomes part of a molecule, and the microcircuit “doesn’t care” what device it operates in. An element can perform its inherent functions only as part of a system, only in coordination with neighboring elements. In some cases, it is impossible for an element to maintain its qualitative certainty even for any length of time outside the system.

Thus, when using a systems approach, the first stage is the task of representing the object under study in the form of a system.

At the second stage, it is necessary to conduct a systemic study. To obtain a complete and correct understanding of the system, it is necessary to carry out this research in subject, functional and historical aspects.

The purpose of substantive analysis is to answer questions such as: what is the composition of the system, and what is the relationship between the components of its structure. The subject research is based on the main properties of the system - integrity and divisibility. In this case, the component composition and set of connections between the components of the system must be necessary and sufficient for the existence of the system itself. Obviously, a strict separation of component and structural analysis is impossible due to their dialectical unity, therefore these studies are carried out in parallel. It is also necessary to establish the place of the system in question in the supersystem and identify all its connections with other elements of this supersystem. At this stage of subject analysis, a search is made for answers to questions about the composition of the supersystem, which includes the system under study, and about the connection of the system under study with other systems through the supersystem.

The next important aspect of systems research is the functional aspect. In essence, it represents an analysis of the dynamics of those connections that were revealed and identified at the stage of subject analysis and answers questions about how a given component of the system works and how the system under study works in a given supersystem.

As for historical research, it can be attributed to the dynamics of the development of a system, and the life cycle of any system is divided into several stages: emergence, formation, evolution, destruction or transformation. Historical research involves conducting genetic analysis, which traces the history of the development of the system and determines the current stage of its life cycle, and prognostic analysis, outlining the paths for its further development.

Summarizing the above analysis, we note that the basis of the systems approach is the consideration of each system as a certain subsystem of a more general system. As for the characteristics of a subsystem, they are determined by the requirements for a system at a higher level of the hierarchy, and when designing or analyzing a subsystem, it is necessary to take into account its interaction with other subsystems at the same level of the hierarchical ladder. When using a systems approach, it is necessary to take into account what components the system is formed from and the way they interact. Also, close attention deserves what functions the system and its constituent components perform and how it is interconnected with other systems, both horizontally and vertically, what are the mechanisms for maintaining, improving and developing the system. The issue of the emergence and development of the system needs to be studied.

These stages can be repeated many times, each time clarifying the idea of ​​the system under study, until all the necessary aspects of knowledge are considered at the required level of abstraction.

CONCLUSION

Each era has its own style of thinking, determined by many factors, and, above all, the level of development of productive forces, including science, and social relations. The real life of an individual, whether he wants it or not, has a direct impact on his worldview and makes him see the world through the prism of modernity. No matter how talented and objective a scientist is, he will inevitably place the main emphasis in his research on those phenomena, processes, and interactions that most concern society in his era. In other words, as social life is, so is the worldview as a whole.

As for truth, being independent in its content from the cognizing subject, at the same time it can be reflected in different ways in a person’s consciousness. Human consciousness is formed by society. Truth is not something continuous, even and monochromatic. It, like reality itself, is multifaceted and inexhaustible. Which side, facet, shade of truth to recognize as the whole truth, to what degree of approximation to the absolute to see it, largely depends on the person living at a given time and in a given society. That is why the understanding of truth relating to the same things, phenomena, processes varies and changes in different eras and in different social systems. A specific society, a specific way of life, one way or another, changes a person’s vision of the world.

Hence, any absolutization of the meaning of any phenomenon, law, process, interaction, associated with its interpretation as exhaustive of the diversity of reality, is deeply erroneous and impedes the constructive development of theoretical knowledge and practice. Truth is always relevant. Updating knowledge is what every scientist consciously or unconsciously strives for. The actualization of truth does not at all exclude the presence of absolute truths. The rotation of the Earth around the Sun is an absolute truth, but the understanding of this truth, say, by Copernicus, differs from its understanding by modern scientists. As we see, absolute truth is also updated and enriched with new discoveries and new ideas. The methodology of systemic cognition and transformation of the world is an effective means of updating knowledge.

A systematic understanding of reality, a systematic approach to theoretical and practical activity is one of the principles of dialectics, just as the category “system” is one of the categories of dialectical materialism. Today, the concept of “system” and the principle of systematicity have begun to play an important role in human life. The fact is that the general progressive movement of science and knowledge occurs unevenly. Certain areas are always identified that are developing faster than others; situations arise that require a deeper and more detailed understanding, and, consequently, a special approach to the study of the new state of science. Therefore, the promotion and intensive development of individual aspects of the dialectical method, contributing to a deeper penetration into objective reality, is a completely natural phenomenon. The method of cognition and the results of cognition are interconnected and influence each other: the method of cognition contributes to a deeper insight into the essence of things and phenomena; in turn, the accumulated knowledge improves the method.

In accordance with the current practical interests of humanity, the cognitive meaning of principles and categories changes. A similar process is clearly observed when, under the influence of practical needs, there is an intensified development of systemic ideas.

The system principle currently acts as an element of the dialectical method as a system and performs its specific function in cognition along with other elements of the dialectical method.

Currently, the principle of consistency is a necessary methodological condition, a requirement of any research and practice. One of its fundamental characteristics is the concept of systematic existence, and thereby the unity of the most general laws of its development.

LITERATURE

1. Knyazeva E.N. Complex systems and nonlinear dynamics in nature and society. // Questions of Philosophy, 1998, No. 4

2. Zavarzin G.A. Individualistic and systemic approach in biology // Questions of Philosophy, 1999, No. 4.

3. Philosophy: Textbook. A manual for university students. / V.F. Berkov, P.A. Vodopyanov, E.Z. Volchek et al.; under general ed. Yu.A. Kharina. - Mn., 2000.

4. Uemov A.I. Systems approach and general systems theory. – M., 1978.

5. Sadovsky V.N. Foundations of the general theory of systems. - M., 1974

6. Clear J. Systemology. Automation of solving system problems. - M., 1990.

7. Fleshiman B.C. Fundamentals of systemology. - M., 1982.

8. Balashov E. P. Evolutionary synthesis of systems. - M., 1985.

9. Malyuta A.N. Patterns of system development. – Kyiv, 1990.

10. Tyukhtin V.S. Reflection, system, cybernetics. – M., 1972.

11. Titov V.V. Systematic approach: (Tutorial) /Higher state advanced training courses for managers, technical engineers and scientists on patent science and invention. – M., 1990.

IN modern scientific methodology, starting from the mid-twentieth century, a new systematic approach has been formed - an interdisciplinary philosophical, methodological and special scientific direction with high research and explanatory potential. As a special type of methodology, it involves the isolation of general philosophical, general scientific and special scientific levels, as well as consideration of the conceptual apparatus, basic principles and functions corresponding to each of them.

As researchers note, the idea of ​​systematicity is present in an implicit, unreflected form in the thoughts of many philosophers of the past. Thus, in ancient Greek philosophy in the works of Plato and Aristotle, the idea of ​​systematicity is widely represented, realized as the integrity of the consideration of knowledge, the systematic construction of logic, and geometry. Later, these ideas were developed in the works of Leibniz, a philosopher and mathematician, in particular, in the “New System of Nature” (1695), in an effort to create a “universal science.” In the 19th century, Hegel essentially generalized the experience of modern philosophy in developing the problem of systematicity, taking as the basis for his reasoning the integrity of the objects of research and the systemic nature of philosophical and scientific knowledge. And although the principle of systematicity had not been explicitly formulated by this time, the idea itself correlated well with the systematizations widespread in natural science by Linnaeus in biology, Decandolle in botany, the holistic study of biological evolution by Charles Darwin, etc. A classic example of the application of the idea of ​​systematicity and integrity was Marx’s teaching on socio-economic formation and his consideration of society as an “organic system”.

Today philosophical principle of consistency is understood as a universal proposition that all objects and phenomena of the world are systems of various types and types of integrity and complexity, however, the question of which interpretation is more justified - ontological or epistemological - remains open and discussed. The dominant traditional point of view today is ontological, originating from the systemic-ontological concepts of Spinoza and Leibniz, which attributes “systematicity” to the objects of reality themselves; the task of the subject-researcher is to discover the system, its connections and relationships, describe, typologize and explain them. But an epistemological interpretation is making its way more and more clearly, in which “systematicity” is considered precisely as a principle inseparable from the theoretical attitudes of the subject-observer, his ability to imagine and construct the object of knowledge as systemic. In particular, famous modern scientists sociologist N. Luhmann, neurobiologists

U. Maturana and F. Varela sought to show that a system, structure, environment does not exist in natural or social reality, but is formed in our knowledge as a result of operations of discrimination and construction carried out by the observer. However, it is impossible to deny that reality must have such “parameters” that can be represented as systems. Systematicity thus appears as a modern way of seeing an object and a style of thinking that has replaced mechanistic ideas and principles of interpretation. Accordingly, a special language is emerging, which includes, first of all, such philosophical and general scientific concepts as systematicity, relationship, connection, element, structure, part and whole, integrity, hierarchy, organization, system analysis and many others.

The principle of systematicity combines and synthesizes several ideas and concepts: systematicity, integrity, the relationship between part and whole, structure and “elementaryness” of objects, universality, universality of connections, relationships, and finally, development, since it assumes not only staticity, but also dynamism and variability of systemic formations . As one of the leading and synthesizing philosophical principles, it underlies systematic approach- general scientific interdisciplinary and particular scientific system methodology, as well as social practice, considering objects as systems. It is not a strict theoretical or methodological concept, but as a set of cognitive principles it allows us to record the insufficiency of an extra-systemic, non-holistic vision of objects and, expanding the knowable reality, helps to build new objects of research, giving them characteristics, and offering new schemes for their explanation. It is close in orientation structural-functional analysis And structuralism, which, however, formulate fairly “rigid” and unambiguous rules and norms, respectively acquiring the features of specific scientific methodologies, for example, in the field of structural linguistics.

The main concept of system methodology is system- has received serious development both in methodological research and in general systems theory - the doctrine of the special scientific study of various types of systems, the laws of their existence, functioning and development. The founder of the theory is L. von Bertalanffy (1930), his predecessor in our country was A.A. Bogdanov, the creator of “Tectology” (1913) - the doctrine of universal organizational science.

The system constitutes an integral complex of interconnected elements; forms a special unity with the environment; has a hierarchy: it is an element of a higher order system, its elements in turn act as systems

lower order. It is necessary to distinguish from the system the so-called unorganized aggregates - a random accumulation of people, various kinds of landfills, the “collapse” of old books at a junk dealer and many others, in which there is no internal organization, connections are random and insignificant, there are no holistic, integrative properties different from the properties of individual fragments .

A feature of “living”, social and technical systems is the transfer of information and the implementation of management processes based on various types of “goal setting”. Various - empirical and theoretical - classifications of systems have been developed, and their types have been identified.

Thus, famous researchers of system methodology V.N. Sadovsky, I.V. Blauberg, E.G. Yudin identified classes of inorganic and organic systems, in contrast to unorganized aggregates. Organic system - it is a self-developing whole, going through stages of complexity and differentiation and possessing a number of specific features. This is the presence in the system, along with structural and genetic connections, coordination and subordination, control mechanisms, for example, biological correlations, the central nervous system, governing bodies in society and others. In such systems, the properties of the parts are determined by the laws and structure of the whole; the parts are transformed along with the whole in the course of its development. The elements of the system have a certain number of degrees of freedom (probabilistic control) and are constantly updated following changes in the whole. In inorganic systems the dependence between the system and its elements is less close, the properties of the parts and their changes are determined by the internal structure, and not by the structure of the whole, changes in the whole may not lead to changes in the elements that exist independently and are even more active than the system as a whole. The stability of the elements determines the stability of such systems. Organic systems, as the most complex, require special research; they are the most promising methodologically (Problems in the methodology of systems research. M., 1970, pp. 38-39).

From the distinction between these two types of systems it follows that the concept element is not absolute and unambiguously defined, since the system can be divided in different ways. An element is “the limit of possible division of an object”, “the minimum component of a system” capable of performing a specific function.

The fundamental tasks being solved today in the field of formation and development of systems research methodology include the following: construction of concepts and models for systemic representation of objects, development of techniques and apparatus for describing all parameters of the system: type of connections, relationship with the environment, structure hierarchy, nature of control, construction formalized - symbolic, ideal, mathematical - systems for describing real system objects and the possibility of applying the rules of logical inference. In specific sciences, at the level of special methodology,

System developments are analyzed using specific methods and systems analysis techniques used specifically for this area of ​​research.

A systematic formulation of the problem involves not just a transition to a “system language”, but a preliminary clarification of the possibility of presenting an object as an integrity, isolating system-forming connections and structural characteristics of the object, etc. In this case, there is always a need to find out subject relevance, those. the correspondence of concepts, methods, principles to a given object in its systemic vision and in combination with methods of other sciences, for example, whether the mathematical apparatus can be applied to a systemically presented object and what it should be.

A number of methodological requirements relate to the description of the elements of an object; in particular, it must be carried out taking into account the element’s place in the system as a whole, since its functions significantly depend on this; one and the same element must be considered as having different parameters, functions, properties that manifest themselves differently in accordance with the hierarchical levels or type of system. An object as a system can be fruitfully studied only in unity with the conditions of its existence, the environment; its structure is understood as a law or principle of connecting elements. The system research program should be based on the recognition of such important features of the elements and the system as the generation of a special property of the whole from the properties of the elements and, in turn, the generation of the properties of the elements under the influence of the properties of the system as a whole.

These general methodological requirements of the systems approach can be supplemented by its specific features in modern sciences. Thus, E.G. Yudin examined the development of systematic ideas and the application of methodological principles of this approach in psychology. In particular, he showed that Gestalt psychology was the first to raise the question of the holistic functioning of the psyche, presenting the laws of Gestalt as laws of organization of the whole based on the unification of functions and structure. At the same time, the approach from the standpoint of integrity and systematicity not only united the object, but also set a scheme for its division and analysis. It is known that Gestalt psychology and its schemes have been subjected to serious criticism, but at the same time, “the basic methodological ideas of the psychology of form hardly belong to history and form part of the entire modern psychology of culture, and traces of their fruitful influence can be found in almost all the main areas of psychology” (Yudin E.G. Methodology of science. Systematicity. Activity. M., 1997. pp. 185-186).

The leading psychologist of the 20th century, J. Piaget, also interpreted the process of mental development as a dynamic system of interaction between the organism and the environment, which has a hierarchy of structures that build on top of each other and are not reducible to one another. Carrying out an operational approach and reflecting on the systemic-structural nature of intelligence, located at the top of the system hierarchy, he expressed a new idea for his time about building a “logic of holistic

stey", which has not been implemented to this day. “To understand the operational nature of thinking, it is necessary to achieve systems as such, and if ordinary logical schemes do not allow us to see such systems, then we need to build a logic of integrity” (Piaget J. Selected psychological works. M., 1969. P. 94).

In an effort to master systems methodology, applying its principles and concepts, the following should be kept in mind. The use of a systems approach is not a direct path to true knowledge; as a methodological technique, systems vision only optimizes cognitive activity and makes it more productive, but in order to obtain and substantiate reliable knowledge it is necessary to apply the entire “arsenal” of general methodological and special principles and methods.

Let's use the example of E.G. Yudin to understand what we are talking about. The famous scientist B.A. Rybakov, trying to establish the author of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign,” did not have a systematic approach in mind and did not use the corresponding concepts, but united and combined several different ways of analyzing the socio-political conditions of Kievan Rus at that time, likes and dislikes the author, expressed in the Lay, his education, stylistic and other features of the chronicle of that era. A genealogical table of the Kyiv princes was compiled and used. The study clarified the special systems of connections and relationships in each of the cases involved, which were not considered separately, but were superimposed on each other. As a result, the search area and the number of possible candidates were sharply reduced and with a high degree of probability it was suggested that the author was the Kiev boyar Peter Borislavich, the chronicler of the Kiev princes. It is obvious that the principle of integrity was used here to enhance the effectiveness of the study and overcome the fragmentation, incompleteness and partial nature of the factors. The result was undoubtedly interesting, the increase in knowledge was obvious, the probability was quite high, but other experts in this field, in particular D.S. Likhachev, expressed quite a lot of counterarguments and did not recognize the truth of the conclusions; the question about the author remains open today.

In this example, which simultaneously reflects the peculiarities of humanitarian research, where formalization and application of mathematical apparatus is impossible, two points emerged: the first - the integrity (systematicity) of the object was constructed, in reality it was not a system with objective natural connections, systematicity is presented only in its methodological function and has no ontological content; second - the systematic approach should not be considered as a “direct path” to true knowledge, its tasks and functions are different and, first of all, as already mentioned, expanding the scope of vision of reality and constructing a new object of study, identifying new types of connections and relationships, applying new methods.

System methodology received new impetus in its development when turning to self-organizing systems or, in other words, when representing an object as a self-organization

organizing system, for example, the brain, a community of organisms, a human collective, an economic system and others. Systems of this type are characterized by an active influence on the environment, flexibility of structure and a special “adaptive mechanism”, as well as unpredictability - they can change their method of action when conditions change, they are able to learn, and take into account past experience. Turning to complexly organized evolving and nonequilibrium systems led researchers to a fundamentally new theory of self-organization - synergetics, which arose in the early 70s of the twentieth century (the term was introduced by the German physicist G. Haken from the Greek sinergeia - assistance, cooperation), combining system-informational, structuralist approaches with the principles of self-organization, nonequilibrium and nonlinearity of dynamic systems.