Which is more important: science or philosophy?
What do you think is more important in our society lately: religion or philosophy? What criteria and reasons can you use to draw this conclusion? Please explain your position and share your opinion.
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?
Which is more important – the human body or the soul? To whom as. We are free to choose the priorities of life, but still religion says that the soul is more important. Because the body will not go to eternity, the soul will go there, and it will go with the moral baggage that it acquired during its life on earth.
Philosophy helps to see this aspect of life, so in some ways it is more important than science; however, it is the scientific picture of the universe that helps a person to see the Great Creator of the universe, and this can arouse his keen interest in philosophy, religion and other humanitarian studies….
Which is more important on the coin-reverse or obverse? (heads or tails). And the denomination is important, and belonging to the state, right? Everything in life has its own meaning, and everyone will have to make a personal choice, because life is not a 10-ruble coin…
First, science and philosophy are contrasted in the question itself, and philosophy and religion are contrasted in the explanation. It seems to me that this is not accidental and the author just wanted to check in, but the answer itself is not important to him. Children are interested in who will win the elephant or whale. Nobody. They will not meet on the battlefield.
Science is the cornerstone of all modern civilization. Philosophy is a pleasant or not mind game. Religion is such a thing that for insulting the feelings of believers can go to jail.
The most important thing is to scrupulously observe all laws.
In my opinion, religion and philosophy can complement each other, but only if they stop quoting other people's thoughts. You need to stop being afraid to have your own opinion, even if it goes against the academic one. The very history of science shows that it could develop only because there were brave souls who found convincing arguments to refute established authorities.
Aren't philosophy and science different stages of understanding the world around us?
First, people notice something in the world around them, which then happens, there are signs.
But omens do not always come true, so some people begin to believe in them, and others do not believe, religion arises.
When more information is accumulated about something that is happening in the world around us, and attempts are made to understand it and develop conclusions, this question passes into the stage of philosophy.
When some very talented people (and there can't be many of them) intuitively try to put some information into practice without fully understanding it, art arises. By the way, science fiction is also an art form.
As the quantity and reliability of information increases, people try to conduct experiments, conduct observations, summarize information and draw reliable conclusions, and fundamental science arises.
When someone comes up with the idea of how to benefit from the information obtained by fundamental science, applied science arises.
The result of applied science is the development of a technology that immediately appears in the news.
Mass application of this technology becomes industrial production, after which people are no longer interested, they just use the technologies without paying attention to them, for example, they click on the buttons of smartphones.
Technologies are gradually becoming obsolete and new ones are coming to replace them.
Well, how do you like this kind of scientific and philosophical essay?
)
This is a question from the series: “Which is more important – the heart or the liver?” Just as the vital activity of the whole organism depends on the work of the heart, so the formation of any science is impossible without philosophy.
It is the basis, the basis, the core of any scientific knowledge. And at the same time, it is a science that studies the most basic propositions, interrelations and interdependencies of everything that exists in nature.
As far as religion was concerned, this form of social consciousness was not even close to science. Neither in terms of goals and objectives, nor in terms of methodology and tools of cognition, nor in terms of fundamental and applied significance for humanity.
Religion is a philistine concoction of far-fetched dogmas, propositions, and attitudes that have been drummed into the heads of the naive and gullible by pseudoscientific woodpeckers for many millennia in order to extract income for their parasitic existence.
Exclude religion completely from the life of modern society – and the progress of mankind will receive a powerful impetus in its development.
The most important thing is that it is constantly in motion and changing! In philosophy, the scientific approach is fruitful, but in science, the philosophical approach is a dead end! How to go-the choice is yours!
The most important task for man is the development of the logos.
Philosophy (gaining Wisdom) should help developing society and individuals to understand the World and the laws of Nature.
Religious teachings (not ecclesiastical ones) provide the most extensive knowledge about the structure of the material World and the non-material World. Without knowledge of the science of Philosophy, it is difficult to accept and understand Religious teachings.
All sciences are derived from the science of Philosophy.
Philosophy is the focal point for the development of science and humanity.
These are my conclusions.
I recommend that you start with Huygens ' Treatise on Light. It is written in simple language and is easy to read. But, it is not necessary to read it all in the aspect of the question posed. Interesting, though. There Huygens reflects on the nature of the process of cognition. He believes that it is only possible to understand something in a way that is practical and transferable to a wide range of people when it is described in words and easily perceived by common sense. Actually, this is exactly the development of such a method of cognition that philosophy was engaged in until the end of the nineteenth century. This was called a verbal description of cause-and-effect relationships. Moreover, confidently established such connections (such, only such, and nothing but such) immediately fell into the rank of laws of nature. What happened at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is well described in V. I. Lenin's work “Materialism and Empirio-criticism”. Here is the characteristic passage ” … matter disappears, formulas remain…”.
There is no point in giving some kind of concise, supposedly “exhaustive answer” to the question posed. If only because philosophy was once and still has to become an instrument of knowledge and a form of consciousness.
By the way! Consciousness is material and cannot assume unlimited “different forms”. There is a limit to the freedom of these forms. Behind it, the freedom of consciousness disappears. This is the most difficult question of the present, not of the past. Now there are works of doctors who study consciousness from a materialistic position and on the basis of modern knowledge of biology and physics. Only this is later.
The question itself is very simple if you don't think about it, and very complex if you answer it. It's like a construction gun. He hammers the nails in.
Easy!
🙂
In general, there is no science without philosophy. Science must fill philosophy. Otherwise, the whole picture of the world does not add up. And here is the first difficulty right away. – What does the phrase “complete picture of the world” mean? You can understand this only by studying some basics of the method of cognition. The role of which was assigned to philosophy. Otherwise… Did Nasreddin communicate with the Frenchman Stoli? “What's round and yellow and big and hidden in the well?”
Previously, philosophy was considered the queen of sciences, but in our time it gave the palm to mathematics. There was a monstrous process in the 90s, when Russian intelligence flowed not even into merchant arithmetic, but market trading.
For 30 years, not a single outstanding discovery in science and technology, not a single significant book has been written.
The rails of the Soviet economy in the” zero ” broke, inertia ended. The same phenomenon has occurred in science and philosophy.
Therefore, there is no Russian science in these times.
And philosophy has taken the form of a political show of windbags on our TV screens.
What to compare with what? Two sciences?
Incorrect question statement! Which is more important than rubber boots,or summer flip-flops? Probably more reasoning,because it is it that is able to put everything in its place.Personal opinion.
Philosophy is the way philosophers exist. Professional talkers, whose chatter is not needed by anyone and scientists are not interested. Feynman wrote about them that they constantly crowd on the sidelines of science, grabbing scientists by the sleeves, trying to say something. But they never really understood science.
Yeltsin made a big mistake-by banning the CPSU, he did not order to disperse all departments of Marxist-Leninist philosophy in higher education institutions. A huge bunch of talkers and hypocrites remained in their places to continue to mess up the brains of young people and strain students. For the sake of interest, I can give you a list of recommended literature at the university for firefighters for half a year: 4 books on firefighting. Philosophy recommended literature list 75 sources!!!
I remember when I was writing an essay on MLF at a university in Soviet times, and in the middle I inserted < < in capitalist countries, they use the achievements of science and technology to squeeze the last juices out of the workers, in particular the fifty-thousand-ton press><in capitalist countries, they use the achievements of science and technology to squeeze the last juices out of the workers, in particular the fifty-thousand-ton press>> . I got a ride – no one read all this stuff. The main thing was to strain the students.