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?
The identity of being and thinking is an idealistic concept developed by Hegel.
Hegel gives thinking an absolute, non-individual character and asserts that thinking contains being, as it were, alienating it in the form of matter. Since the world, according to Hegel, develops according to the laws of reason, being is internally logical and identical with thinking.
The trick here is that Hegel absolutizes thinking, “takes” it away from a person and gives it to the world as such. The human mind and thinking in this concept are only a manifestation of this”absolute thinking”. The next step is to state that if thinking is absolutely and in its scope embraces the whole world (directs its existence), then the world (being) is thinking. To put it very roughly, this is the Cartesian cogito ergo sum applied to the entire world. If we have thinking, and thinking is everything, then why do we need everything else?
The concept of the identity of being and thinking has been repeatedly criticized by materialist philosophers.
The main problem with this concept, in my opinion, is that we completely unjustifiably and groundlessly endow the world with human qualities and build philosophy and science from this premise.
On the one hand, it simplifies many things and allows us to act from pre-defined and clear parameters. On the other hand, we cannot say that these parameters are correct and that our understanding of the world is correct.
For the first time this <philosophical > thought (and position) in relation to being was formulated, according to philosophical sources, by the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides, who stated (in various variations that have come down to us): “Thinking is the same as what thought is about”, or “thinking is the same as being”, or….
It is worth noting: the idea is deep, fundamental (“cornerstone”) and philosophical…
And besides, it is put in the aspect of the main philosophical question: what is primary or true being.
In this, these thinkers and philosophers began to take a principled position: etym (“what the thought is about”) being is the same as thinking-soul-spirit-consciousness, i.e. everything that relates to the essences and nature of the non-corporeal (immaterial).
And here we may be asked: why is this issue so principled? To which they answer: the question of being is the first (together with the theory of knowledge) with which to begin to build a philosophical theory. For it (i.e., the theory of knowledge), according to their understanding, must come to such ontological conclusions. Since, according to its approach and principles, cognition begins directly — with the subject (or should be referred to it). And being such, and occupying such a position (in the world of being), the subject himself must possess, if not everything, then some sufficient (being) for that, otherwise (without this again “being” foundation) further and confident steps in cognition of the “being” cannot take place. Yes, yes, this is where the path of learning everything should begin.
this is one thing only in the esoteric view of the active faiths.
but this is the SAME in Reality, because the World is One.
The world CANNOT be Not One, otherwise it would only be entropically destroyed.
It's there,
estness is fixed by self-awareness,
which manifests itself in thinking,
reflecting the interaction of multiplicity,
arising within the one as its dream of self-awareness.
Being can be called matter,and thinking can be called consciousness. Is it the same thing or not? Some of them are primary, and some are secondary. You here “philosophers” will write about Geigels, without putting your head in.
This is what Parmenides said. Because there is no non-being, he said, but being is and thinking is. He represented existence as an infinite sphere, outside of which there is nothing. Thinking has a place only inside. It and being are one.
This is a philosophical topic that you can think about for a very long time. This question can be viewed from different points of view, depending on the philosophical views. Quoting Rene Descartes: “I think, therefore I exist.” In the process of thinking, you can find yourself thinking, and therefore existing.