Dialectics of justice and error in normative knowledge

Addressing the social sciences, it is known that in every instant the illusory understanding of social reality is caused by the fact that it is conditioned by methods, methods, and restrictions of social historical practice.In the presence of adequate social and historical practice for a certain stage of lens discovery, one must be able to distinguish from the fact that the subject of understanding has been misinformed or misinterpreted because of wrong behavior.Thus, the cause of mischief in knowing the truth is directly related to the origin of the theory of knowledge. The study of separation from the socio- historical process, from life, has led to a wrong mistake in which human imperfection is imperfect.The concepts about the gnoseological nature of irregularities, the correlation between truth and error, and relationships are formed from a dialectical approach to knowledge. Gegel describes the truth as a process, and the fact that the error of error is not the opposite of the truth, but rather a historically limited form of action to know the truth. At the same time, the nature and the nature of the error are different from the scientific explanations. The error is considered as a limitation of knowing, absorbing the results of practical application and learning of some aspects of reality. At the same time gnoseological roots of different types of conservatism, including national ones. Its gnoseological roots take place in the process of isolation of national customs, traditions and peculiarities from the single civilization process. Each national culture has an effective opportunity for free and comprehensive development through mutual enrichment and mutual enrichment of all national cultures.As a matter of illusion or phenomenon on the surface of the phenomenon, the phenomenon of its occurrence, the characteristic of the people and the other social activities and behaviors of the people, when the historical character of it becomes absolute.In order to eliminate the problem, it is necessary first of all to change the social conditions that created them. This necessitates a serious change in all aspects of social life. Without them, it is impossible to get rid of the errors and stereotypes and the norms of behavior and behavior appropriate to them. It is unambiguous that the theory will completely free theoretically and practically from these errors. Because mistakes have an active dialectical relationship in the process of moving towards an objective reality and have their own real, gnoseological and social roots.

In the normative sphere, the lack of knowledge about the object and subject of the regulatory regime, the inadequacy of the norms of creative design, the unification of the interests of one social group, the denial of social and national interests, the absolute or abrupt downs of the role of one form of business. All of this leads to serious misconceptions and norms in the normalization and normalization of activity, which can not meet the real need and benefits.At the same time, the creation of a dimension that permits a clear margin of error and truth is extremely complex, and ultimately determines the extent to which the social consciousness and social practice are developing. At the same time, it is relative, because what is considered to be the truth may then be a malicious mistake.

The new truth can not survive without proving its error, without denying the facts of the past. Therefore, what to deny, what to keep and what new knowledge, new principles and norms, in the normative and other spheres of today's conditions, is essential not only in the normalization of the norm, but also in the normative practice. Because it is not enough to create a new norm that exactly reflects real needs and interests. Perhaps, we need to create appropriate mechanisms for practical implementation of these norms. This process should be avoided as a way to deny that democratization is one-sided - a means of responsibility and compulsion, based on a number of mistakes and stereotypes, especially in the widespread awareness-raising and unconditional compliance with the law.

Therefore, it is crucial that the most important necessity of eliminating subjecivism in interpreting the sources of errors that are characteristic for today.This is not merely an inherent imperfection of a person's knowledge of work, but the result of the neglect of the interests of groups and others, by consciously attracting attention to one and the other, ignoring the other parties. So, in order to find the root of the errors, it is often necessary to get out of the subject and the circle of knowledge, because the cause of the error may be the color and complexity of the subject matter. However, the diversity of objects and their complexity are not their motive, but their condition. Therefore, in order to find the roots of errors, it is necessary to consider the social conditions of life activity of people, their concepts about their interests and outlook, to examine the concrete character of the existing practice and relationship between them, and to analyze the level of material and spiritual culture of society.

Indeed, the President of our country Sh.M.Mirziyoyev emphasized: "It is crucial to find out what other laws and regulations, normative documents need to be adopted, and why the current legislation is not functioning in order to further deepen reforms in our country."One of the reasons for misinterpretation is the denunciation of the position of representatives of different social groups, if they have not been able to properly assess the objective position of society and its various spheres in the social development position, with the exceptionally narrow egoistic interests, besides the socio-historical and gnoseoogical causes of errors, the mood of social groups, their emotions, their emotions, can be found in any practical and practical practice. All of this can prevent the realistic picture of reality.

Under certain circumstances, emotions, passions, and emotions are just a few people's attitudes, endorsements, and attitudes, and their relationship with reality and reality does not go deeper into play. Such processes are reflected in market relations, in pre-election meetings, in the work of lawmakers, legislations, and other normative documents.From the aforementioned, the following conclusion can be drawn: As with other fields, the problem of truth, warning and prevention of error in the regulatory field is not only theoretical, but practical. This is because it is closely linked to the human condition and abilities in society, the issues of managing the social activities of people, and the regulation of them.Based on this, it is desirable to study the philosophical and methodological problems of the specificity of truth in social life.

Source used:

• 1.    Kiryushchenko V.V. Language and sign in pragmatism. St. Petersburg: Publishing house of the European University in St. Petersburg, 2008. -199 p. - ISBN 978-5-94380-069-6.

• 2.    Melville Yu. K. Charles Pierce and pragmatism. M., 1968.

• 3.    Frank S.L. Pragmatism as an epistemological doctrine. - In the collection: New Ideas in Philosophy. St. Petersburg, 1913, Sat. 7, p. 115-157

• 4.    Yulina NS, Apresyan P. G. Pragmatism // New Philosophical Encyclopedia / Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Nat. soc.-nauch. fund; Prev. scientific ed. Council of VS Styopin, deputy predecessors: A. A. Huseynov, G. Yu. Semigin, uch. sec. A. P. Ogurtsov. - 2 nd ed., Rev. and add. - M .: Thought, 2010. - ISBN 978-5-244-01115-9.

• 5.    Мамажонова Г. К. МЕЖРЕЛИГИОЗНОЕ СОГЛАСИЕ КАК ОДИН ИЗ ОСНОВНЫХ ФАКТОРОВ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ В ЦЕНТРАЛЬНОЙ АЗИИ //Теория и практика современной науки. – 2017. – №. 5. – С. 483-485.