Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Every school of philosophy, every trend, style, and even some individual philosophers have their own basic question. It's always been like this. Even today, not everyone wants to answer the question that Engels and Lenin posed to themselves. Why are their followers bigger?/they can't find anyone yet.
In general, the question of the primordial [arche], a modification of which is the question of the relation of spirit and matter, is a question of metaphysics. And not everyone is interested in this approach, some try to forget metaphysics as such and do something else. Camus, for example, thought it was more important to find out if life was worth living. For Heidegger, the basic question is how the basic question arises in the history of philosophy. For me, for example, the main question of philosophy is to find all new meanings in addition to those that are already known.
Modern philosophy is an extreme generalization.
Something like the average temperature in the hospital.
The question is posed specifically – ” Why is the basic question of philosophy rejected?”
In the historical philosophical tradition, the main question was and still remains the question of the dichotomy of the material and the ideal: what is primary and determines the qualities of the second? Simply put, what is the primary chicken or egg?
This particular question is answered differently by different branches and schools of philosophy. And disputes over the main issue have so far developed and are developing philosophical knowledge.
The pseudo-liberal trend in philosophy rejects the very existence of the basic question of philosophy, which in fact rejects not the basic question, but the principle of such extreme abstractions and generalizations, on the basis of which this question arose.
The task of the pseudo-liberal direction in philosophy is to strive to:
And the current state of the traditional basic question of philosophy is now slowly creeping into a crisis due to the progressive informatization of public life and the development of information technologies and physics – the sharpness of the opposition between the material and the ideal is beginning to disappear. The next step in the development of the traditional basic question of philosophy should be the recognition of the ideal as material(a special form of material).
I think that by the end of the XXI century, the traditional formulation of the main question of philosophy will somehow change.
The existence of the basic question of philosophy as a dichotomy of the material and the ideal is the final period in the development of human cognition. The world is absolutely material.
This is due to the priority of empiricism. which began during the period of defending the priority of applied science and striving to limit itself to it (various denials of ontological philosophy, etc.).
In fact, the basic question of philosophy has already been solved. The material is the root cause of everything that exists, including the ideal. The world defines human consciousness as the highest form of living matter. This was well illustrated by the classics of Marxism. But since the revolution has temporarily lost out in the world, idealistic teachings are beginning to spread. The philosophy served by the state apparatus is simply an encrypted opinion for the masses, the exploiting class, i.e., the oligarchs. Some kind of dope. For what? To strengthen exploitation, to prevent thoughts of true freedom, fraternity and equality. Philosophy is always partisan, and this partisanship is expressed in the class it defends. Philosophy is the science of truth. And the oppressed classes, throughout the whole course of history, were moving towards the truth, towards an understanding of the world without obscurantism and spiritualization.
It rejects the question that was (proclaimed) the main one in the ideological tradition of Marxist-Leninist philosophy (its scheme still remains in universities). This is the question of the relationship between matter and consciousness (the first side of the OVF — what is primary?, the second — is the world knowable?). In modern philosophy, the main question is: “why is there something, and not vice versa-nothing?”. How to understand this and everything about philosophy is simple and clear, see on my channel
There is no single “modern philosophy”, but there are many trends, each of which has its own “main question”. The problem is that there are so many trends that the uninitiated do not understand why such a philosophy is needed at all. In Shukshin's short story “Pedestal”, a village philosopher was mentioned, whose initial premise of philosophy was the statement “all people are horses”. So it is today: every philosopher has his own “philosophy”.
Mainly because it tries to avoid inconvenient conclusions for itself and obscure, hide existing contradictions.
First of all, the very question called “basic” is the question of the primacy of such categories as “material” and “ideal”. (By “material” is meant the philosophical meaning of this concept, which includes not only the concept of “matter” in the physical sense, but also a number of other things that, however, are often associated with physics.)
Why is it named “main”? – Exactly because consistently asking the question “why?” (starting, of course, with some concrete and understandable phenomenon), we will inevitably, in a finite time, come to the question of the primacy of the material or ideal-one in relation to the other.
Why are they trying to reject it? – Because:
Not everyone understands exactly what the question is.
Those who understand the essence of the question are often not satisfied with the questions and conclusions that follow from any answer to this question.
The easiest way is to use an example to illustrate the position of each response.
Materialism: the material is primary, the ideal (including consciousness) is secondary.
Idealism: the ideal (including consciousness) is primary, the material is secondary.
Objective idealism: there is a certain consciousness (“Higher reason” / “World will”/”Universal law ” / “God”/Some other superconsciousness), to which everything is subject.
Subjective idealism: the world depends on my consciousness/feelings (100500 trainings on how to develop correct thinking, learn how to influence reality with consciousness, develop “rich” thinking, etc., in the extreme case – solipsism).
Materialism: my consciousness reflects reality (it can be crooked, it can be accurate; the fact is that reality exists independently of my [and anyone else's] consciousness, and consciousness is a product of perception of reality, which can only influence it through action; that is, everything in the head, ultimately, directly or indirectly, is always taken from the material world).
Naturally, if this contradiction is revealed, and not only in itself, but also with all its consequences and conclusions (including far – reaching ones), it can lead to conclusions that are incompatible, for example, with liberalism (however, no less than with traditionalism or religion). Because from the very fact of recognizing this contradiction-that this is the main question of philosophy, a very inconvenient philosophy of Marx and his followers can emerge, obviously, in some eyes, at least undesirable and marginal, and at most – completely extremist.