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?
If we speak in the context of Marxist textbooks, then we can not even separate them too much, since they represent similar solutions to the so – called “Basic Question of Philosophy” in its two main hypostases-epistemological and ontological. Let me remind you that ontologically OVF is formulated as a question of primacy between spirit and matter, epistemologically it is a question of the possibility of cognition of the world and the ways of its cognition. Here they usually try to parallel materialism-empiricism, since in the latter it turns out that the mind, consciousness depends on external factors, on sensations, on the other hand – idealism-rationalism, since here the mind is considered absolutely independent and capable of independently generating ideas that in turn determine material reality.
On the other hand, it has always seemed to me that such a convergence of two completely different questions – the question of primacy and the question of cognizability-is not advisable. Moreover, the existence of such figures as Berkeley-an idealist and an empiricist-refutes the existence of any strict relationship between the solutions of these two questions. In this case, rationalism and idealism are something like high and green.
At least read Wikipedia. And it is better to engage in practical activities, at least wash the dishes and cook soup.
Why go there, which is elementary not even to ask at least in Wikipedia?
Such questions are asked out of idleness and unwillingness to think or do anything at all. This is called “idleness gum”, as if to say, you are here to entertain me while I am lying here on the couch…
How can THE SUBJECT OF philosophy BE STUDIED: Should IDEALISM be confused with the METHOD OF STUDYING SOMETHING, which is rationalism?
Your question is comparable to a question like: What is the difference between a burger and not wanting to think?
FROM WIKIPEDIA: RATIONALISM (from Lat. ratio-reason – – a philosophical and ideological attitude, according to which the principles of reason are the true knowledge of human existence and behavior.
In Philosophy, constant reflection develops the mind and leads to individual independence of the mind.
That is, a person LEARNS something THROUGH his UNDERSTANDING , that is, BY THE METHOD OF his REFLECTION AND his INFERENCE (that is, he MAKES his CONCLUSIONS and his ASSESSMENT OF EVENTS).
What a mind, such is the assessment of events. A stupid mind draws its own conclusions, a smart mind draws its own conclusions. Therefore, people are still different and cannot agree among themselves, because the same phenomena and objects are interpreted differently.
IDEALISM (Fr. idealisme from the Greek iδέα — idea) is a direction in philosophy that combines many teachings that somehow claim that consciousness is primary, and matter is secondary.
Scientists claim that there is a Plan for the World Order, created and controlled by a Higher Consciousness that has the TRUTH . Hence, the atom is energy and everything is a form of energy.The highest form of Energy is LIGHT. Therefore, the Highest Consciousness in IDEALISM is the LUMINOUS TRUTH.
Idealism is the foundation of all religions. There is a higher consciousness (the Holy God-the LIGHT OF TRUTH) who created this world.
And it is the business of men, through the priests, to comprehend the tablets of God and follow them in their lives, without hesitation, that is, blindly, with untiring faith in the great Saviour.
Man is a slave, and priests are smarter than slaves and are guides of knowledge from God.
Religion is not a philosophical teaching, because religion excludes knowledge of the world through individual reflections that lead to an individual worldview.
Religion requires the complete submission of a person's thoughts in accordance with the requirements of religious books on how a servant of God should think and live in order to receive God's grace someday, in order to somehow approach the feet of the saints.
Therefore, all temples are high with high doors, to remind of the pettiness of human vanity and the greatness of the God-Light (Saint). In these temples, the height of the people falls only on the level of the feet of the Great Ones.
But not even all slaves are allowed to prostrate at the feet of the saints. This honor must also be earned in order to kiss the Benefactor's feet or at least the hem of his clothes.
As they say: “You are not even worth my heels”, that is, the Savior turned away from the slave and the slave does not even have the right to kiss his heels, only footprints in the dust.
In general, your question has nothing to do with Philosophy and your question is asked precisely from the point of view of the layman.
Ordinary people call a rationalist an unpleasant person, who in life is guided and acts only by the rational brain, without any pity for people.
And an idealist is always described as such a half-witted fool, a simpering woman : either acting like a little girl or an older woman, strangely dressed and talking strangely.
In this case, an idealist means a lady who does not fit into real society and lives in some far-fetched world of her own, so they tease her and imitate her, and twist her finger at her temple.