- 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 one of the eternal questions of philosophy, the answer to which is still impossible to give.
The essence of the question is to determine whether we influence being by having the foundations of our worldview formed not from being, or whether being influences us and forms our worldview.
The difficulty of this question is that here the answer depends on the meaning of the term “being”. If being is defined globally, the question remains open, but the answer can be explained by the fact that the formation of a worldview is too complex a process for us to deduce the key factor – consciousness or being.
But if being is defined as the local surrounding world (which is not true for philosophy, but is often implied in this question by the questioners), then the answer is also unclear, but the explanation is different – there are examples of people who fully correspond to their environment and are formed under its influence, and there are examples of people who came out of their environment, having achieved significant success in another country, for example.
No serious philosopher has ever addressed this question. Simply because it is illiterate formulated. Here is a competent formulation of the correlation of” being “and” thinking/consciousness ” in Parmenides (and not in university associate professors): “being and the consciousness that recognizes it are identical.” Otherwise, being and consciousness are a continuum, i.e. they are connected: “being-consciousness”. There is no being without consciousness thinking about being. Consciousness, on the other hand, is a way of thinking about the existential. One is IMPOSSIBLE without the other. However, it should be understood that philosophers do not talk about consciousness “in the head” and about being as ” existence as a whole.” The question of primacy is a pseudo-question (brought into common use by Friedrich Engels, a bombardier who studied for one year at the university), which walked in the Marxist ideology. Not to be confused with Marx's philosophy. Marx was a competent philosopher.
When the baby is in the womb, then for the baby the world is one. When a baby is born, then soon he discovers that the world can be full, or it can be hungry, soon the baby realizes that the world can be warm, or it can be cold, and then the world can be dry, or it can be wet, it can be light, or it can be dark, and so on, and there can also be many combinations, for example, light warm, dry and And of course, we see that consciousness arises in the baby as a consequence of being, and this continues until about the age of adolescence, when the child begins to consider himself omniscient and able to do everything, and from that time everything begins to change places, and consciousness begins to control the way of life and preferences. If the child is addicted to cigarettes, wine, drugs, then this is one existence, and if the child is studying and improving himself, then this is another existence.
Being and consciousness are interrelated things. This is a vicious circle. God says, ” If you have a little faith, I will give you a little knowledge of your faith, and when you have a little knowledge, your faith will increase, and then you will receive even more knowledge, and your faith will increase even more, and so on until your Light reaches the Light of the perfect noonday day.It is the same with consciousness and being. If we improve our consciousness a little, we will restore order around ourselves and our being will become cleaner and better, and then seeing the result we will become even more conscious, and so on until we become like our Savior Jesus Christ.
The phrase” the higher a person's consciousness, the more it determines being ” is ambiguous. If by being we mean comfort, and by the definition of being – creating comfort, then we cannot agree with the statement, since there are very conscious people who do not live in comfortable conditions.
Consciousness is the essence of being, they are inseparable or are one, but as if “in different degrees of refinement/density” of the planes of understanding. This can be understood by analogy, for example, for the modern layman, the essence of any matter in its atomistic structure. Matter perceived by the five senses is dense, but its essence is contained in a subtle atomism.
To manifest consciousness, it needs a form-carrier. The levels of manifestation of consciousness in matter are the levels of being of consciousness. Self-awareness in matter is already the highest level of Consciousness evolution. This is a classically correct view, according to Eastern Doctrine.
But in view of the fact that a person has accepted the center of the creative impulse (the divine spark) as his “Ego”, the action of the” Ego ” absorbs all the tensions of subtle energies (Hierarchies of Forces of the planet, cosmic ones, etc.). So instead of cosmic action, a person has established the center of the self in himself. The self is a darkened derivative of self-awareness. Therefore, for most people who do not develop spiritually, or develop distorted spirituality, such as mediumism, witchcraft, and also reject the divine, being determines consciousness. He who believes in what he believes will abide by it.
Higher powers!!! Lord God! The Creator of everything determines everything, but being is inseparable from consciousness. Life corresponds to consciousness, just like being.
Does being determine consciousness ? Is Marx right ?
In animals, being determines consciousness. In humans, consciousness determines being. I'm kidding. And now in more detail, the phrase “being determines consciousness” is a half-truth. That is, in fact, a lie. Sophism. Life is dialectical. And in certain periods of time, “being determines consciousness,” and in others, ” consciousness determines being.” Just as being affects consciousness, so consciousness affects being. And Marx's phrase “in the oven,” as Professor Preobrazhensky would say.
But the premise that matter is primary and consciousness is secondary is correct from the materialist's point of view. But this is not the same as being determines consciousness. These are different things. For after consciousness has arisen, it begins in many cases to determine being. And the higher a person's consciousness is, the more it determines their being.
In short: “Being completely determines consciousness only in the dead. For he has no consciousness. And if there is consciousness, then it begins to define being. And the higher a person's consciousness, the more it determines being.”
If consciousness determined being, it would be enough for a hungry person to think and realize that he is full. But everyone knows that this is not how it works, even if you inspire yourself to be full, the body will need calories. A hungry person needs to perform actions to become full – for example, to eat. This interaction with the outside world is being. This is one time.
Let's take a simple object – a forest. And let's take three different subjects interacting with this object: a forester, a military man, and a tourist. Each of the three subjects sees and defines the forest object differently. However, two foresters, two military men, and two tourists see and define the forest in much the same way. Do I need to explain why this is so? That's right, because the existence of two foresters is about the same, just as the existence of two military men is identical and the existence of two tourists is roughly comparable. Therefore, being determines consciousness.
It's not a chicken or egg question. Marx was a profound philosopher, and one should not think that a person with such a level of intelligence blurted nonsense into a book without thinking. You can agree with him, you can not-the essence of this will not change.
For the strong, consciousness determines being, and for the weak, being determines consciousness.
If there were no consciousness before, everything would remain at the level of being in the Stone Age.
Someone's consciousness changed the world and made it what it is today.
Being is changed by people with strong internal motivation. Where this internal motivation comes from is not known for certain.It is very likely that it is definitely not from genesis.
Being determines consciousness, and in general, the social environment affects a huge number of factors. For example, the consciousness of people under capitalism is strikingly different from the consciousness of people under the socialist system.
Social aspect. everything depends on my actions and words, and my actions and words depend on my consciousness, which means that my being depends on my consciousness and determines it. At the same time, it is very important for my consciousness how I was born, how I was brought up, what kind of society surrounds me, because being also determines my consciousness. Now let's look at it all through a materialistic lens. The emergence of my consciousness depended on matter and what processes took place in matter determined my consciousness, but I had the ability to change matter and thereby change being and thereby also influence my consciousness. Now let's look at it from a spiritual point of view. The Creator provided me with consciousness and gave me matter, so that I could change matter and improve consciousness, and matter changing, changed my consciousness. Based on all that has been said, I can only say that both statements are true. In all aspects, social, spiritual, and materialistic.
Consciousness determines being, or is being consciousness?
Consciousness-gives us the concept of being itself
And being, we, are the carrier of the consciousness that determines being
Elementary is simple, after all
A person's consciousness is formed by spiritual values that are at the level of unconditional and conditioned reflexes. From this it follows that being does not determine consciousness, but only corrects the consciousness of a person.
What is primary at birth? Consciousness or being? At birth, consciousness is probably primary. How does a baby define his mother or wet nurse? By consciousness? Or by being? I believe that it is still conscious. The feeling of warmth from it, satisfying hunger, comfort after swaddling and much more, pleasant. Mother or wet nurse is offered being. And the consciousness of the infant evaluates how comfortable the proposed existence is for him.
In short, I would say that in order for consciousness to begin to determine being, a certain level or quality of this very being is necessary. That is, I would still give being a dominant role.�
Of course, no one is forbidden to talk about higher (or not so) matters, experiment with positive thinking and other poorly grounded practices. But it is much more pleasant to do this if you are well-fed, healthy and generally have at least a tolerable, even a thin existence. I think that even Tibetan elders who have learned Zen eat and drink something, no matter how far their consciousness is from perishable existence. And if they say they don't eat or drink, they do it twice as often as normal people.�
Briefly, you can denote the argument as follows. There is no consciousness without being, but being without consciousness is something else. What follows is easy to see.
This question was usually raised and resolved in the classical philosophy of the Enlightenment (I mean precisely the German philosophy of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries-I. Fichte , I. Kant, F. Schelling, F. Hegel, K. Marx, L. Feuerbach) from the point of view that “consciousness” was understood as an abstract Idea or logically abstract Spirit, and “being” as the material world. Hence, three schools of philosophical subjective idealism emerged (I. Fichte, I. Kant), which logically deduced the existence of the “Non-Self” from the consciousness of a person from his “I”, that is, the world, and put the knowledge of the earthly subject in the first place, the second point of view is objective idealism (F. Kant). Schelling, F. Hegel), who believed that there is a certain global “consciousness” in the form of an abstract Idea, Spirit, from which the existence of being (matter) is deduced logically and dialectically. And finally, the third school – materialism (L. Feuerbach, K. Marx), who believed that being is an eternal substance (matter), and consciousness reflects this matter, this being (see fig. then the theory of “active reflection”) is derived from it. That is, in fact, there are even two schools, if we simplify a little – idealistic monism (everything is Spirit, everything is Consciousness or derivatives of them, that is, being is a simple derivative containing the same spirit) and materialistic monism (everything is being, that is, matter that produces any consciousness, and consciousness is an organized matter). Within the framework of both the first and second points of view, the opposite principle is philosophically and logically destroyed. The objective idealists did not express this so strongly, but in fact all of them could not clearly explain how an idea passes into matter and how it can be the basis of matter. The materialists had the opposite problem, they could not explain how consciousness flows out of matter (since the presence of consciousness in a person could not be denied). At first, materialists believed that thought is simply generated by the brain as a kind of material selection. Then it turned out that there were no material thoughts in the brain. Then they began to believe that thought is a function of the brain. But even here there were problems. Materialists referred to the fact that if the brain is damaged, then thinking is disrupted, and therefore the brain precedes consciousness and there is no soul (as an ideal principle independent of the brain). It turned out, however, that the opposite is also true – severe mental illnesses….damage the brain (under the influence of incorrect thinking, pathological neural networks are formed that change the structure of the brain. So if a person is ill with inorganic schizophrenia and has not been treated for a long time for 10 years, then his brain structure will resemble the brain of an organic schizophrenic, whose schizophrenia is a consequence of genetic hereditary factors).
The contradiction is resolved within the framework of religious theism, which is usually confused with objective idealism. In it, God is essentially above both consciousness (idea) and matter (being). God as absolute Being and absolute Consciousness is the super-organizing principle and creates material being and is the source of ideal being. Both existences (idea and matter) do not generate each other, but are generated by a super-created God, who cannot be said either to be an “idea” (which is only realized in development) or to be “matter” (since matter does not presuppose such a thing).
Our consciousness is only a reflection of the surrounding reality. Our behavior is a reaction to this reality.
There is no doubt that we can change the reality around us. At the same time, our needs (i.e., what makes us interact with this reality) are innate. The environment in which you have to act is also a given.
These factors determine our actions and the content of our consciousness.
There are exceptions when outwardly a person “goes against nature”, for example, acting to his own detriment. However, such exceptions are explained in the course of a person's life.
Being determines consciousness. There are many beautiful ideas in politics and morals, but people act based on their own interests, not on theories, otherwise communism would have been long ago.
We also do not produce our personal ideas, our view of the world, our beliefs, our individual meanings of life “out of ourselves”, but find them in real life.
It should be said at once that Marx spoke about social existence and social consciousness. I think everything is clear here, industrial relations (the basis )in society determine culture, politics, laws (the superstructure). And yet, for the individual, it works the same way, but dialectically. The consciousness of an individual determines everything that influenced him, in what country he lived,in what family, relatives and friends, books read and movies watched, in a word, his being. However, how exactly being determines consciousness no longer depends on being, but on the individual's consciousness and free will. A child from an academic family can become a drug addict, or an academic from a family of drug addicts. Every moment a person forms his attitude to being denies it in his consciousness or asserts it ( he either likes what is happening or not) In one way or another, consciousness will be determined by being, but how exactly зависит depends on a multitude of acts of consciousness ' will