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?
This is your own philosophical work and your decision-to consider that this or that philosophy “reflects reality most adequately” for one reason or another. An original argument in favor of a particular philosophy is material for a candidate's or doctoral thesis, so you will not find such arguments here.
A private person's argument in everyday life can be anything from “I was taught this way” or “I feel this way” to “Marx's teaching is all-powerful because it is true” or “damn liberals/communists/buddhists/semantic externalists distorted something there.”
Actually, this is what any first-year student faces when he sees a variety of approaches in his science, generated precisely by philosophical disagreements – everyone runs to the teacher to ask “what is the right thing”.
I am a linguist by training, and my teachers have said to me when it comes to disagreements between countless linguistic schools: it is not I who will tell you what is right, but you who will tell me what is right, and why you think it is right to do so.
What if there is no reflection? What if there is no adequacy? What if there is no reality? What if you don't need to reflect anything? What if all these words don't mean anything? What if all these questions don't need to be answered?
That's what philosophy does, and a lot of other similar things.
Every philosopher must ask such questions and answer them consciously, without taking anything for granted. Otherwise, it is not a philosopher.
The very essence of the philosophy is to accept nothing by default. If you not only accept, but also fiercely hold on to, for example, the subject-object approach, materialism, and Lenin's theory of reflection, without wanting to doubt them even for a moment, then this is called dogmatism and narrow-mindedness, that is, something opposite to philosophy.
The subject of philosophy is not the reflection of reality. And the construction of reality is not the subject of philosophy. Its subject is the thought of oneself.
There are many ways to think about a thought. Some of these paths have reached a dead end, because there is no one else, no need, or nowhere else to move – and thought is movement. What has not yet reached a dead end is alive, and the living is mobile and changeable.
To talk about the adequacy of reality, you need to understand what adequacy is and what reality is. When you think about it, you will become philosophical. If you think you have found the true philosophy, you will die, because what does not change is dead.
Adequate reflection of reality-this expression implies some final result, which is obtained in the right way and which can be used.
But such a final result, in principle, can not be, because reality is a constantly changing material environment in which we live.
A person's thinking must adapt a person to live in this constantly changing environment, so thinking must study these changes and follow them.
Therefore, the process of thinking is also a changing process. And while the process lasts, it can only contain current states, but not the finished result. And as long as humanity is alive, the process of cognition also lasts.
Various trends in philosophy are explained by the fact that these trends take as the main subject of study some part or side of our diverse world, and claim that it is this part that is the basis of the world.
But the world is diverse, and no one-sided consideration of it should be considered universal, because it describes the world in a partial and limited way. But the historical merit in the philosophy of each of these trends is great. Some advanced logic, some advanced the methodology of science, some advanced linguistics, some advanced dialectics, etc.
But all together they form a common philosophy, as a sphere of human knowledge.
Philosophy as a sphere of human knowledge combines the results of all specific sciences (natural and humanitarian) and philosophical theories of its own directions, the validity of which has been confirmed by time and practice of people's activities.
Therefore, the general philosophy reflects reality most adequately, but even this knowledge is temporary, it passes through long, changing epochs of development.
“Adequate reflection” of what? That is, according to what? If the object of adequacy is not specified in the sentence, then by default it is understood to be adequate to the materialistic worldview.
In addition, there is a personal, so to speak, adequacy. You think it's true, and your buddy thinks it's false. You have different “adequacy”.
For this reason, the answer will be individualized for each individual consciousness.
But if we understand the standard of adequacy as a truth independent of human consciousness, then the answer may be quite definite. To me, at least, this is an esoteric philosophy. And for a very simple reason: it is the only one that provides satisfying answers to the questions of being, its genesis, and the evolution of the cosmos. It alone can lead to a true understanding or intuitive acceptance of the worldview, which is based on the existence of an unknowable causeless Cause that gave impetus to the phenomenal existence of the Universe. Ours is just another one in an endless series of worlds being born and disappearing. It alone explains all phenomena in our world from the point of view of the existence of a Universal Mind and Universal Consciousness, the sparks of which are humanity.
We are talking about philosophy and by this we mean science, and these are two big differences. Neither Pythagoras, much less Socrates and all the Wise Men of the East defended anything and were philosophers. How to evaluate wisdom- – – by what yardstick. Who can–do this? What currents can wisdom have? Wake up, you're all in a deep sleep. “In this world of fools, scoundrels, and merchants, O wise one, shut your ears, sew up your mouth securely, and close your eyelids tightly- – – at least think a little About the safety of your eyes, tongue,and ears!!!” With respect.
Only one that covers them all as part of a single system. There are no such people in society, because society protects itself from the Truth. In general, all philosophies are divided into 16 directions for all peoples, for all times, corresponding to the 16 main psychotypes-the parts into which the Single Adam Kadmon broke up, if we speak in metaphors.
https://vk.com/gullwayder?w=wall21709123_1736%2Fall
Against the background of detailed answers in a philosophical way, I will try to answer in accordance with the rules of formal logic.
a person Hanged! Barbarism. The Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg was hanged ! A good deed, a reward for the millions who died. Do you see how the attitude to HANGING a PERSON is changing? There may be hundreds of thousands of philosophical trends. It all depends on your type of thinking, whether you think formally or materially. If you think formally (setting clear boundaries of thought), one type of philosophy will do, and materially (without setting a limit for thought), the other. If you think without setting limits, you can become a scientist, like Niels Bohr or Pavlov, but most, unfortunately, become visionaries. Learn logic for yourself, not for the sake of a diploma grade)
Everything that is invented by man has flaws and is limited by the limits of the human mind. Therefore, among the philosophical trends invented by people, you will not find a single infallible one.
But there is a philosophy that people did not invent themselves, but received directly from the One Who created our reality. This philosophy is described in the book Bhagavad-gita as it is, and it is not subject to the shortcomings that are inherent in people, so it is precisely this philosophy that is, not even the most, but completely adequate to the truth.
To understand the answer, it is necessary to understand the essence of philosophy, which is its most difficult question according to Poe and Kant. Classical philosophy was the science of science as the canon of its theorizing of the sciences. The socialization of society was the reason for the rejection of classical philosophy by the dominant forces in it, continuity was broken with it, and now philodoxia prevails. True philosophy does not reflect reality, but serves (like mathematics to some extent) only as a basis for theorizing the sciences in order to better understand reality. Therefore, it is necessary to assimilate its main product – dialectical logic as the canon of theorizing all sciences that monistically explain reality, following the example of Euclid's geometry, etc.
The name of this philosophy is Dialectical materialism, the most complete philosophy that is not biased or distorted by bourgeois theories. This philosophy represents things and phenomena as they are in reality, in action, in movement and development. At the same time, like all bourgeois philosophies, there is adaptability to the existing economic system, distortion and complete abstraction, isolation and rigidity.
But none at all.
Philosophy is a very subjective, in my opinion, and multipolar kind of way of thinking and the resulting world order and its awareness.
Simply put, vtyuhivanie their view of the world by someone. As many people as there are on the planet, there can be so many different philosophies. It may be worth getting acquainted with them, but it's stupid to stick to them.
Have you ever heard the expression – “the philosophy of the flock is where the shepherd drove” – that's all it is.☺
None at all. “Philosophy” is the self-designation of the professional activity of “philosophers”. The essence of the activity of” philosophers ” lies in thinking about everything, not for the sake of a practical result, but for the sake of the process of thinking. This activity is carried out by “philosophers” for the sake of carrots and dominance, that is, they show off safely for money.
The process of reasoning for the sake of reasoning itself (Hegel's philosophical idol “The Science of Logic”) in principle does not reflect reality because it has nothing to do with it… Science reflects reality adequately.
Your question is incorrect, because you have not defined the essence of the concept of “reality”. What's it? The totality of sensory experience? Things as they are without our perception? Or what is reality? In fact, philosophy describes reality in different ways. Very different ways. Philosophy is precisely prekrsana because none of these theories can not be fully confirmed or refuted