белетристичното

N. Rozov. A strange thing! We have been arguing for an hour now, and I still cannot penetrate the essence of your "fictional thinking." D. Dame. Ask yourself - why? I know critics who handle ready-made formulas inherited from ancient philosophers, and cling to them like blind men cling to their staff. Therefore, any slightest touch on dogmas and traditional phrases throws them into bewilderment and anxiety. They begin to wonder: is there not a deviation from the dogmatic canon here, which is for them one of the seven deadly sins?

The differences between artistic (concrete-figurative) and scientific (abstract-conceptual) thinking have long been the subject of research. So far, literary science has given us a relatively accurate solution to this problem - starting from the imperfect definition "art is thinking in images, and science - in concepts" and ending with the synthetic definition "in science, the objects described are signs for themselves, and in art - figurative signs for human states". The organicity of scientific thinking presupposes a precise logical construction and precisely derived concepts and ideas. In other words - correspondence between the logical construction and the ability of the human mind to abstraction. The main prerequisite for the organicity of artistic thinking is the harmony between the elements that transform objects into figurative signs. That is, the harmony between the ideological and formal elements. For different arts, these elements are different and enter into the most diverse connections.