2 Answers

  1. 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.

  2. The first will always be being. And then there is the awareness of being. Consciousness can be different, it can be conformist:

    • Yes, everything in the world is as it is, and I live as it is accepted.

    It can be absurd:

    • a person undergoes suffering, but believes that after death he will receive a reward. Or a man who has spent his whole life in shoes and a bowler hat considers himself with the “proletariat” that he understands the working spirit and supports it. Or just some crazy thing.

    And rebellious:

    • realize the imperfection, change something, come up with something better and more efficient.

    These are not mutually exclusive consciousnesses. Seeking to change something in politics, a person can be conservative in marriage, put up with its shortcomings, and feel dislike from criticism of traditional relationships.

    Sometimes people try to do castling by raising children. Identify the right consciousness for them, so that the children can use it to define being. It's very difficult. Everyone remembers the criticism of such education: you can scold a child a hundred times for smoking, but if you smoke yourself, it's useless. That's what it is. Growing up and facing life, the child will feel acute dissonance, worry, and draw sharp conclusions. It turns out that your friends may betray you, that girls will not love you for your kindness and help, that your homeland is not the best country, that evil is often not punished, and so on. A person starts to twist from this, you need a good supply of intelligence and calmness to later realize that, well, the world is like this.

Leave a Reply