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?
Both are important. Science is of practical importance. It describes the world more or less objectively and improves our lives through discoveries and inventions.
Culture also brings a certain meaning to our lives, it describes not objective reality, but ourselves, helps with self-determination and self-identification.
On the one hand, science and culture are different. In fact, these two areas affect each other. There is no possible scientist who is not a product of some culture. Science also influences culture. Well, for example, the same inventions that influenced our culture. And if you look at it more broadly, then science is part of culture. After all, in essence, culture is everything that has been created, understood, discovered, and understood by people.
To be honest, it is very strange in the answers (including the top one) to say that culture was born before science and that without science people lived for hundreds of thousands of years and everything was normal.
In my opinion, this is completely wrong. Science was born when man began to make his first tools of labor, when he mastered agriculture and animal husbandry — these were the first “achievements of science” of that time. Without them, we would not have been able to develop into such a large society and certainly would not be people in the modern sense. Science has always existed, but it did not contradict culture (as a rule), so it cannot be said that any of them are more important. Without science and culture, we would not be homo sapiens, and these things distinguish us from apes.
If we understand “culture” in the broadest sense of the word, then science is part of culture exactly to the same extent as the ability to sculpt pots from clay, or the preferred hygiene procedures after a visit to the toilet. The whole is always more important than any part of it.
If we understand “culture” narrowly – in the context of art, etc., then this phenomenon (as well as culture in a broad sense) arose at the dawn of human civilization. Material culture – no later than the Early Paleolithic: even before the appearance of not only modern man as a biological species, but even before the appearance of erectus (pithecanthropus). Art appeared in the Late Paleolithic (previously there is no material evidence) and flourished in the Neolithic. Even so, but civilization arose long before the advent of science and hundreds of thousands of years perfectly managed without it. But no human society has existed without culture in the broad sense, and since the Neolithic, without culture in the narrow sense. Without science, humanity can live and has lived; without culture, it cannot.
The author himself in the comments interprets his question as ” is scientific progress more important, or cultural?“.�
I answer based on the observed discussion. And it is such that the respondents mostly criticize the author of the question for its incorrect formulation, while the latter is perplexed why such a logical question causes comments, instead of getting an answer. This situation itself shows performatively that it is impossible to make an unambiguous choice here. The question and the positive reaction of those who answer it (i.e., attempts to answer it) indicate an unquestionable priority.cultures-the questioner and the responders do not see meaning in their participation in this dialogue, thereby revealing their belonging to a general type of culture in which discussion and argument are not only recognized, but also recognized as values. However, the lack of agreement (even relative and, at least, at the moment) between the parties underlines the importance and necessity of not only a general cultural attitude, but also a specific – precise and conceptually articulated toolset for its practical implementation. And such tools are the prerogative of science. That is, in terms of the question: culture is certainly more important, but only science (as a product of culture) knows why this is so!:) �
In this case, culture is an extremely broad concept that encompasses all non-natural (supra-natural) ways and forms of human existence, including science. Its priority in this way is quite obvious. Culture as an artistic culture( art), as an imaginative comprehension of the world, is quite opposite to science as a conceptual form of such comprehension. However, I think that the dispute about their importance is resolved not in the plane of some abstract and unambiguous superiority, but in the correlation of how much both contribute to the development of the human in a person, that is, how much Beauty (culture) and Truth (science) serve the Good. In 1749, G-Zh. Rousseau answered negatively to the question ” Did the revival of the sciences and arts contribute to the purification of morals?” Have the past almost 270 years added to the optimism of this issue? I don't think so… 🙁
The question was asked incorrectly. The question is something like this: what is more important than a daughter or a son? or which finger do you like best? It is impossible to answer it with a reasoned answer – these are integral and interrelated parts of life, the importance of which everyone determines based on personal preferences. At the same time, each assessment will be subjectively correct.
Science and culture are very closely interrelated things. Culture in the broadest sense is everything created by man, and therefore science is part of culture (said earlier). If we understand that culture is an art and spiritual sphere, then science is also important here, physics, anatomy, optics are very important for artists and dancers.
The most important thing is what restricts and directs science and culture, that is, ideas about good and evil. Without this, science begins to work for the destruction of humanity, and culture-for the stupefaction and degradation of people.
This eternal dispute between lyricists and physicists will always continue. I think that both science and culture are important. A person will not argue that Kirkorov, for example, has an unimportant profession (he sings), or Einstein also has an unimportant profession (he was engaged in science). Both Philip Kirkorov and Albert Einstein are professionals in their field, and their contribution is very valuable for humanity.
It is not technology and knowledge about the world that determines a person as a person, but more – how a person uses his “arsenal of intelligence”, and this is already determined by culture. To determine a person, it does not matter whether he cooks food on a campfire, or in a microwave oven. And can we say that the ancient Celts were less human than we are? My answer is that culture is a constant field of action of the mind, and science begins to dominate in the crisis moments of history ; everyone knows that the bursts of technology are observed precisely in the years when culture was in decline, in the Middle Ages, almost the entire twentieth century, especially its second half, these are the times of the Mongol conquests, the conquest of the Americas… Science seems to me to be a tool for human expansion into a world that can do just fine without us. There is such a movement – “back to nature”. This, of course, is an inflection, but it does not make sense. Now, however, science is increasingly becoming theoretical, and technologies are only becoming more complex, and their value is falling. Perhaps, if there is some breakthrough in the theories of the universe, science can become a priority in the life of mankind, but now this area of activity is unprofitable.
Yes, if there was at least something, and that would be great! Unfortunately, the global division of labor does not bode well for people in developing countries. In addition, the answer will be different, depending on whose point of view we take.
Let's take the point of view of some Khazar or Pecheneg khan or prince. What is more important for him to maintain the power of his clan, his clan, his village and his tribe (over countless neighboring tribes)? He needs science to make weapons. But it is incredibly expensive, so there is no reason to finance science – the money will be spent, and weapons will not work. Therefore, the most important thing for him is intelligence.
Culture is important to the extent that it celebrates the Khan and his power, but religion works better. Young people listen only to Justin Bieber (and his local, Khazar or Pecheneg clones). TV channels hold noisy contests for the best performance of the Pecheneg version of Justin Bieber's new hit. In principle, it makes sense for Khan, of course, to invest in local clones of Justin Bieber, loyal to Khan. It's cheaper than science, and it's easier to persuade ordinary Pechenegs to pay for it, buy CDs and tickets.
Scientists and artists from economically weak countries have little chance of putting the result of their work on the global shelf. They don't buy their results, they buy their brains. Actually, the same is true in the economy – large firms often lure personnel from small ones, rather than buying developments. The market is full, and an army of producers supported by their states are rushing to fill the shelves and turn on advertising campaigns. Both are costly, and only pay off when the scale of implementation is enormous. Madonna or ABBA increase the GDP of their respective countries. Harry Potter makes a good cash register. Boris Johnson here the other day boasted about what kind of box office makes a lightsaber from star wars. Science eventually leads to the creation of medicines (which the inhabitants of the “developing” world cannot afford), weapons (which they buy expensively to rob each other), useful practices.�
It would be nice to have something. At least science. At least the culture. But developing countries have neither. Their fate is to buy ready-made products from developed countries and give their brains and profits there.
to begin with, we need to indicate that I translate the concepts of science as the systematization of knowledge, the analysis of which the goal is repetition, the ability to reproduce (built, did not fall, we are building the same), and culture as the process of dreaming, associations and as a result and the goal is not repetition.
in my opinion, culture is more important, because the spiritual includes matter (theoretically, as a kind of spirit density)
and science excludes spirituality, because of the lack of feedback, the inability to repeat the experience, the need for a number of witnesses to systematize the experience, etc.
if only culture remains, it will always produce science. but the opposite will not happen. science will survive and reject the shoots of the unsystematic, individual, until, for some reason, the “critical mass” of knowledge is reached and a paradigm shift occurs (for example, in ancient times it was believed that the earth is flat, and then changed to the earth is round. the transition process is a paradigm shift. what is noteworthy, the change occurred before there was an opportunity to look at the “ball” from the side). for this reason, humanity idealizes children as carriers of a fresh look (and mistakenly attributes some special purity or moral qualities) that allows them to develop. a systematized mind can only reproduce itself, stagnate (against the background of constant changes).
culture will always include science as another variant of culture. just like the polytheists, the Jewish or Christian god is another companion in the company. but science will exclude the” polytheistic ” culture and will strive to rule alone.
it is the” tolerance ” of culture that makes it all-encompassing.
* only my opinion, I will be happy to hear another one.
Culture, in my opinion, is more important only for the reason that the totality of cultural objects includes a number of scientific achievements. Many inventions can be attributed to cultural values. Although first of all, when talking about culture, it is worth mentioning the languages of the world, and, taking this as a basis, start thinking about what and how to write down “scientific achievements”, formulas and hypotheses for scientific discoveries. Painting, music, and literature are a separate topic. On this topic, I advise you to read the “Carrier of Culture” by Vyacheslav Rybakov.
Science is the brain of humanity
Culture is the heart of society
That is, these areas are equivalent with the advent of science, culture also appears.
Yes, and I would like to learn more about the importance of culture in this matter.
If you think at such an easy level,then you just need to distinguish that the facet of culture is popularization in some turn, just like science.
Priority : Biology (microbiology) – Oleg Voevodin, litechtenie-Kul'tura-Nauka.
Cultural victory is the most difficult, in my opinion, of those that are now available in civilization. Science is much easier, but you can't give up culture at all, otherwise your cities will be too slow to expand their borders.
I think culture is more important for the average person. Only the main thing is that the real culture goes to the masses, and not its imitation in the form of Timati and Sarik Andreasyan.
As far as science is concerned, it is an essential part of our lives. However, very few people are seriously engaged in it. It would be great if more people were interested in science. Then our society will also be healthier.
I think it's still a culture. For the most part, these two concepts are close to each other, because it is culture that makes people human. It was culture that led humanity forward, and culture also became the impetus for the development of science. In other words, if there were no culture, there would be no science.
Aristotle said: “He who advances in the sciences, but lags behind in morals, goes backward rather than forward.” �
Science helps to organize human society technically, make life easier for it, bring comfort to it, solve many life problems so that a person has more free time, etc. Culture helps to organize a person's inner world, organize their relationships with each other, with the world around them, etc. If a person is morally degraded, then the achievements of science that he has discovered will go to his evil-he will use his free time not for self-development, but in order to do evil more time, and he will use the scientific discoveries themselves for the same, for example, the discovery of the properties of the atom can be used to fuck on any enemy, etc. All the same, internal achievements are more important than scientific ones, if they moved together in this order-perhaps we would live in paradise ( or almost in paradise).
In my answer, if anything, there is no science-hating, I'm just against science-worshipping.
Culture, because it is responsible for preserving scientific achievements. For example, after the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe was left without running water or centralized road construction for 1,200 years.
Science and culture are interrelated things, if culture is perceived not as a kind of “kala-mala”, but exclusively as a process of education.Well, what kind of education can there be without science? At one time ,Hegel suggested that the United States has a great future precisely because culture is more accessible.
Your question implies that these concepts are, if not opposed, then in some kind of confrontation. In fact, these concepts are completely different from the spheres of human life.
So there is no answer to your question, because the question was asked incorrectly.