1. The Basic Method of Philosophy and the Problematic of the Foundations of Modern Philosophy.

The Basic Method of Philosophy, being the starting point of reasoning, describes ideas about philosophy that are not knowledge in the full sense of the word, since they themselves are not part of a theoretical philosophical model (and, in addition, contradict existing philosophical models) - to create one, it is necessary to consider the structures of the objective and subjective sides of reality, their transformations in the process of mutual transition and the characteristics of the recreated new philosophical reality, and for this it is necessary to create a conceptual apparatus corresponding to the Basic Method.
Attempts to understand the Basic Method of Philosophy through existing ideas and concepts, at least in cases known to the author, have proven unsuccessful, due to the use of outdated and deeply ingrained definitions in the mind, primarily the definitions of the objective and subjective.
In particular, there is a large array of discussions on the problematic of the objective and subjective on Quora - both in attempts to obtain their general definitions, and in consideration of specific cases in which typical errors and contradictions are reproduced in one form or another, and by any of the disputing parties, so that all parties to the discussion turn out to be right and wrong in their own way. The lack of a correct understanding is primarily due to the fact that the concepts of the objective and subjective are quite young for philosophical thought, while the ancient categories of “form-content”, “phenomenon-essence” that preceded them are densely overgrown with derivative concepts and interpretations and still occupy that part of the mental space that should be given to the pair “objective-subjective”. The second reason is the false intuitive obviousness of the meaning of the pair “objective-subjective”, which seems to exclude the need for a thorough study of it, and the contradictions that arise seem to be insignificant and do not affect anything by and large. At the same time, according to the Basic Method of Philosophy, the triad “reality, objective and subjective sides of reality” forms the basis of the conceptual apparatus of philosophy, and an incorrect idea of ​​their relationship leads to the fact that, as in the proverb “a fish rots from the head”, any logic in the relationships of lower (derived from them) philosophical concepts and ideas is destroyed. Thus, for example, the identification of “objectivity” and “reality” has become commonplace, which has caused the emergence of “objective and subjective reality” as a critical counteraction, while “reality” itself is defined as “actuality” or “what actually is”. Without going into an analysis of this confusion, it should be noted that one of its consequences is the lack of connection between such “concepts” and other categories of philosophy, as if a person’s head were not connected to his body. And just as a person whose head is separated from his body is considered dead, so is a philosophy dead in which reality and its subjective and objective sides are replaced by “objective and subjective reality” and other confusion.
It should also be noted that traditional ideas about reality contain a misunderstanding of how the concept of reality should be analyzed. Being generic in relation to all other philosophical concepts, it cannot be defined in a standard way – as specific in relation to something even more general. However, such attempts are made, which leads to the formation of quasi-definitions – “reality” as “actuality”, “what actually exists”, etc., creating the appearance of understanding. This, among other things, leads to the fact that in modern philosophy there are no rational, that is, logically consistent and empirically understandable, foundations. Which, in turn, gives rise to the diversity and chaos of “philosophical concepts” that differ from each other by the arbitrary discretion of their authors.
As proof of this, the following can be said. With the emergence of sciences and their design as separate and socially significant types of activity, not subordinated to the dominant ideology, having their own, scientific methods of cognition, philosophy found itself in a dual and ambiguous position. On the one hand, by inertia, it remained the generalizing principle of sciences, and on the other hand, it turned into a “talk shop” in which it is not necessary to prove. When comparing the foundations of sciences and the foundations of modern philosophy, it becomes clear that scientific foundations - axioms differ from philosophical ones in their objectivist character, while philosophical ones differ from scientific ones in their subjectivist character.
This situation is natural if we take into account the existence in modern philosophy of confusion in the understanding of the triad of reality and its sides. However, this situation is intolerable from the point of view of the cognitive value of philosophy, which currently exists to a greater extent as a pseudo-scientific appendix to one or another aggressive propaganda. The perniciousness of such “philosophy” was best demonstrated by the Soviet Union, where its transformation into a propaganda tool led to the degradation of society and the collapse of the state.

2. The Basic Method of Philosophy as a vision as opposed to knowledge

There is no vision of (one) initial concept of philosophy, largely because in that case it would be necessary to justify “where” such an initial concept came from – in the sense that such a justification by definition cannot be derived from the content of the philosophical theory itself. And therefore, its appearance can only be given a non-philosophical explanation, of an even more general nature than a philosophical explanation. But, from the point of view of modern philosophy, this is nonsense, since philosophy is by default a doctrine of the most general properties and laws of nature. And there can be nothing to explain it except philosophy.
This is where the arbitrariness of the foundations of philosophy arises, when its foundations, in quantity and quality, are selected based on the discretion of the founder of a particular concept.
At the same time, according to the Basic Method of Philosophy, philosophizing as a way of thinking, consisting in the mutual transition of the objective and subjective sides of reality, already contains the concept of reality as the original philosophical concept, and hence philosophy as a whole is a teaching on how, based on its Method, to carry out philosophical cognition - cognition as reality - of any object under study. Thus, in itself, as the beginning of philosophy, the Basic Method of Philosophy is an idea (not an explanation, but an observation) of nature and consciousness in their relationship, in which philosophizing is one of the forms of consciousness, and its main characteristic (ultimate goal) is reality as a result of philosophical comprehension of something. In this capacity, the philosophical form of consciousness is opposed to the rational form of consciousness (as consciousness of nature), the highest degree of which is science, and the emotional form of consciousness (as consciousness of consciousness), the highest form of which is art, which, in turn, are its preceding stages.
By means of a rational, for example, scientific form, consciousness studies the nature of the object under study (as an element in relations with other objects of nature) according to the established (generally accepted) rules of a specific science (or thinking in general), forming its scientific (objective) side according to the properties associated with interaction with other objects. By means of an artistic, emotional form, consciousness studies the impact of the object under study on itself as its own state, conditioned by the properties of the object, forming the sensory (subjective) side of the object according to the totality of properties associated with the impact of the object on consciousness. Both sides are interconnected: the rational (including scientific) form of consciousness operates with symbols perceived and interpreted by the emotional form of consciousness (and thanks to it), which is a consequence of the discrete nature of the brain's work. The sensuality caused by symbols is regulated by the rules of operations with signs in a specific area (science) and the general logical rules of the functioning of consciousness and is a necessary mediation (has an auxiliary character) for these operations. The emotional, artistic form of consciousness operates with feelings, emotions, sensations, perceived and interpreted by the rational form of consciousness (and thanks to it), and is a consequence of the continuity of the brain's work. The rational side here is auxiliary (mediates the work) in relation to the emotional. The goal of the rational form of consciousness is the development of patterns - models of human thinking or action, and the goal of the emotional form is the development (maintenance of a certain tone) of human emotional states. And thus, patterns (thought forms) and states (emoforms) of a person are manifestations (observable objects) of the state (phases) of his consciousness.
Thus, two forms of work of the brain/consciousness form two sides of cognizable objects - objective and subjective. Moreover, it should be noted that here and below, cognizable objects mean everything that can be covered by a single goal-setting and, as a result, a single thought - from a trip to the theater to the production of a car or to getting married - and is expressed externally in a system of knowledge/information, a concept.
Thus, the "cognizable object" exists in the following forms: a) as a certain task to be solved (an unknown object), for example, an upcoming trip to the store, b) as a certain project for solving the assigned task, for example, a plan for an upcoming trip to the store (a theoretically cognized object), c) as an executed task with an analysis of its execution (a cognized object). The objective and subjective sides of the object of knowledge, being forms of consciousness (states of the brain), interact with each other in two ways: complementing one another (“harmony”, “balance”) and denying one another (“contradiction”, “imbalance”). When there is a negation or contradiction, a process of eliminating it arises, which can be of a technical nature (searching for an “error” in thinking or perception) or of a “philosophical” nature – compromise, mutual change or mutual transition of the parties. The technical nature of eliminating an error in thinking or perception means changing one side of consciousness (objective or subjective) with the help of the other – finding and eliminating an error in thinking – bringing it into line with feelings, or, conversely, finding and eliminating an error in feelings – bringing them into line with thinking. The first is professionally handled by specialists in their field – they tune thinking, the second – by psychologists, who tune feelings.
In case of an error in perception or thinking, the object does not change, therefore the expression “in fact” is used (the object is not what someone thinks about it) - and this is not a “subjective opinion”, but an error. For example, “in reality, the compote is not salty, but sweet”, “in reality, two plus two is four, not five”. “Subjective opinion” arises when they say, for example, that the compote becomes tastier if the fruit is boiled for less than half an hour. And if we are talking, for example, about a transaction, then they talk about its invalidity either due to a violation of the law (objective side), or due to a defect in intent (imaginary, feigned, misleading, etc.), that is, about the defects of one of the parties, and its unreality - due to the discrepancy between expectations (subjective side) and possibilities (objective side), that is, about a defect in the mutual transition of the parties.
The correspondence of the objective and subjective sides of an object is its knowledge, and errors in understanding are corrected by standard methods.
However, situations arise when standard ideas begin to give errors - suppose it turns out that boiling a certain fruit gives a taste more like the taste of juice - in this case, at first, an apparent error of perception (of compote as juice) arises, which contradicts the concept of compote, which has a certain type of taste. Then a contradiction arises between the objective side of "compote" (as a reality opposing consciousness) - the technology of preparing the fruit - and the subjective side of "compote" - a taste uncharacteristic of it. Consciousness-brain refuses to perceive such a drink as compote and includes a mechanism of mutual modification: the subjective side (taste) requires a change in technology, and the objective side (technology) requires the adaptation of consciousness to a new taste. If both sides act with equal force, then each of them adapts to the other equally, and vice versa, if, for example, the taste turned out to be categorically unacceptable - the technology changes to a greater extent, if the change in technology is too costly, and the taste is acceptable - the taste adapts to a greater extent (the concept of compote changes in terms of its subjective perception). In the updated concept of the changed technology of compote production, a changed description of its taste will correspond, that is, the objective and subjective sides of "compote" will again find their harmony, but at a new level.
From here grow "philosophy of the consumer" and "philosophy of the producer" - as a natural consequence of the objective and subjective sides of consciousness - and socio-economic events and transformations in society are based on their foundation.
The transition from the objective side to the subjective side entails a readjustment of feelings or emotions in relation to the object of knowledge, which means the emergence of new properties and/or a change in existing ones. The transition from the subjective side to the objective side entails changes in the understanding of the object of knowledge, which means the emergence of new or a change in existing patterns of its existence. Therefore, the proposal to “treat something philosophically” means a proposal to find a middle ground between attempts to change a certain situation and attempts to change the attitude to the situation itself.
The Basic Method of Philosophy as the basis of the future philosophical system of knowledge is a vision, that is, a description of the observed phenomenon called “philosophy”. However, visions, just like knowledge, can be both true and false - once there was a vision that the Sun revolves around the Earth, then the vision appeared that the Earth revolves around the Sun - and people began to persecute for it. When knowledge appeared about what revolves around what, the persecution stopped, and the situation in the dominant consciousness calmed down. Correct visions, despite the fact that at the beginning of their appearance they contradict standard visions, do not need evidence, since they themselves are sources of evidence and sources of new knowledge, while incorrect or outdated visions are not such, but are only a way or form of organizing this or that consciousness. Correct visions are based on a specific historical totality of knowledge and achievements, therefore they are periodically updated, representing qualitatively transformed visions of the previous era. In this sense, the Basic Method of Philosophy is a generalized idea of ​​the forms of consciousness and the functioning of the brain, caused by the emergence of sciences and technologies as separate types of human activity, the emergence of new philosophical terms of “objective”, “subjective”, “reality” and philosophical ideas based on them, in particular Rabindranath Tagore and Albert Einstein.
From this, in particular, it follows that the Basic Method of Philosophy allows us to re-work and generalize the history of philosophy - as the history of the development of visions and knowledge about reality and its sides, objective and subjective.