Cognition as a subject of philosophical analysis. Consciousness is always a conscious being, an expression of a person's attitude to his being.

Consciousness is always a conscious being, an expression of a person's attitude to his being. Knowledge is an objective reality given in the mind of a person who, in his activity, reflects and ideally reproduces objective regular connections. real world. Cognition is the process of acquiring and developing knowledge, conditioned primarily by socio-historical practice, its constant deepening, expansion and improvement. On such an interaction of an object and a subject, the result of which is new knowledge about the world.

The term "knowledge" is usually used in three main senses: 1. abilities, abilities, skills, which are based on awareness of how to do something, to implement; 2) any cognitively significant (in particular, adequate) information; 3) a special cognitive unit, a gnoseological form of a person's relationship to reality, existing along with and in interconnection with “his friend” - with a practical attitude. The second and third aspects are the subject of epistemology, the theory of knowledge.

The question of whether objective reality can be given in the mind of a person - and if so, in what way - has long interested people. The vast majority of philosophers and scientists in the affirmative decide the question of whether we call the World. However, there is such a doctrine as agnosticism (from the Greek agnostos - unknowable), whose representatives deny (in whole or in part) the fundamental possibility of knowing the objective world, identifying its patterns and comprehending objective truth. In the history of philosophy, the most famous agnostics were the English philosopher Hume and the German philosopher Kant, according to which objects, although they exist objectively, are unknowable “things-in-themselves”.

When characterizing agnosticism, the following should be kept in mind. First, it cannot be presented as a concept that denies the very fact of the existence of knowledge, which (fact) agnosticism does not refute. This is not about knowledge, but about clarifying its capabilities and what it is in relation to reality. Secondly, elements of agnosticism can be found in a wide variety of philosophical systems. Therefore, in particular, it is wrong to identify any idealism with agnosticism. Thus, the German philosopher Hegel, being an objective idealist, criticized agnosticism, recognized the cognizability of the world, developed a dialectical theory of knowledge, pointing to the activity of the subject in this process. However, he interpreted knowledge as development, self-knowledge of the world spirit, the absolute idea.

Thirdly, the persistence of agnosticism is due to the fact that it was able to capture some of the real difficulties and complex problems of the process of cognition, which to this day have not received a final solution. This, in particular, is inexhaustibility, the limits of knowledge, the impossibility of fully comprehending the ever-changing being, its subjective refraction in the senses and thinking of a person - limited in their capabilities, etc. Meanwhile, the most resolute refutation of agnosticism is contained in the sensory-objective activity of people. If they, cognizing certain phenomena, deliberately reproduce them, then there is no room left for the “unknowable thing-in-itself”.

Unlike agnostics, supporters of skepticism do not deny the cognizability of the world, but either doubt the possibility of cognition, or, without doubting it, stop at a negative result (skepticism as “paralysis of truth”). Namely, they understand the process of cognition as “wasted denial” , and not as dialectical (with the retention of the positive.) Such an approach invariably leads to subjectivism, although skepticism (especially “thinking”) in a certain sense helps to overcome errors in reaching the truth.

Karl Marx said about being and consciousness

Being determines consciousness - thoughts, feelings, moods, actions of a person depend on the life situation in which he is
By the way, O great, mighty Russian language, the statement about being and consciousness in Russian sounds ambiguous. What determines what: being is consciousness or consciousness is being? If you think about the construction of the phrase - it is not clear. It would be correct - consciousness is determined by being. But we are used to...

“In the social production of their lives, people enter into certain, ... relations independent of their will - relations of production .... The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, ... the basis on which the legal and political superstructure rises and to which correspond to certain forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and spiritual processes of life in general. It is not the consciousness of people that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness.

“Being determines consciousness” is the fundamental principle of materialism, in contrast to idealism, which asserts the opposite “Consciousness determines being” (“being is determined by consciousness”)

The dispute between materialism and idealism is one of the insoluble ones, because it poses “eternal” questions to humanity that have no answer.

—

“Consciousness determines being no less than being determines consciousness. Without a high culture, a strong economy is impossible, because with a cave consciousness you can only build a cave society" (Igor Garin "Prophets and Poets")

Dictionary

- one of the two main directions in philosophy, stating that nature, being exist independently of human consciousness, matter is primary, therefore the world is cognizable
- another main direction of philosophy, which affirms the idea, consciousness, spirit as primary, and matter as secondary. It denies the objective existence of the real world, recognizing the subjective, individual sensations of a person as the only reality. That is, the world is not what exists around, but what a person sees, perceives, how he feels it.
- a philosophical concept denoting life, not dependent on the perception of it by a person
- a philosophical concept denoting a person's ability to think, determine their attitude to reality

Being determines consciousness

Being determines consciousness
From the preface to "On the Critique of Political Economy" (1859) by Karl Marx (1818-1883): "It is not the consciousness of people that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness."
Allegorically: the justification of someone's moods, addictions or shortcomings (jokingly ironic).

encyclopedic Dictionary winged words and expressions. - M.: "Lokid-Press". Vadim Serov. 2003 .

See what "Being determines consciousness" is in other dictionaries:

Philos. a concept denoting the presence of phenomena and objects in themselves or as given in the mind, and not their content aspect. It can be understood as a synonym for the concepts of "existence" and "existent" or differ from them in one or another semantic ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

- (being colloquial), being, pl. no, cf. 1. Existence, reality. Being determines consciousness. "Motion is a form of being of matter." Lenin. 2. Life, existence (obsolete, now ironic). Soon his happy life will end. ❖ Book of Genesis (Church lit.)… … Dictionary Ushakov

being- BEING1, i, cf. Condition, the totality of the conditions of the material life of society; Syn: reality. Being determines consciousness. GENESIS2, I, cf. The existence of someone, what l., the fullness of the manifestation of physical and spiritual forces; Syn: life. The joys of life...

being- , ia, cf. ** Being determines consciousness. // From the work of K. Marx "To the Critique of Political Economy"/. ◘ Of course, being determines consciousness. However, how many times, on the contrary, has a stubborn thieving consciousness determined being? Ex., 12/31/85. Why… … Explanatory Dictionary of the Language of Soviet Deputies

Ex., s., use. very often Morphology: (no) what? consciousness, why? consciousness, (see) what? consciousness what? consciousness about what? about consciousness 1. Consciousness is the ability of a person to perceive and understand the surrounding reality. Development,… … Dictionary of Dmitriev

consciousness- I, only unit, p. 1) philosophic, psychol. The ability of a person to think, reason and determine his attitude to reality; mental activity as a reflection of reality. Consciousness is a function of the brain. Consciousness is a subjective image ... ... Popular dictionary of the Russian language

being- being; (colloquial) see also. existential 1) philosophic, only: being / Objective reality (matter, nature) that exists independently of human consciousness. Objective, real being /. 2) The totality of the conditions of the material life of society. Public… … Dictionary of many expressions

consciousness- CONSCIOUSNESS1 and ((stl 8)) CONSCIOUSNESS ((/stl 8)), i, cf. Spec. Property of a person, manifested in his ability to reproduce reality in thinking. Being determines consciousness. CONSCIOUSNESS2 and ((stl 8))Consciousness((/stl 8)), I, cf The state of a person in ... Explanatory dictionary of Russian nouns

The variety of distinctions and their differences (primary experience), as well as preferences (singling out one or another element of what is distinguished as the foreground) and identifications of what is distinguished. In correlation with the world as a distinctness of being, S. forms ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

CONSCIOUSNESS- CONSCIOUSNESS. In empirical psychology, S. is understood as such a connection of simultaneous and successive mental processes in time, which leads to the knowledge of reality and the regulation of the relationship of the individual with the outside world (about ... ... Big Medical Encyclopedia

Books

Prophets and poets (set of 8 books), I. Garin. Consciousness determines being no less than being determines consciousness. Without a high culture, a strong economy is impossible, because with a cave consciousness you can only build a cave society.…

Let us now see what the catechism of diamatus provides for the solution of this antinomy. It is not so easy to find out, because the antinomy is expressed vaguely, not sharply, not dialectically. We can, however, force diamat, using his own words, to a precise formulation of the thesis and antithesis.

Thesis determinism (materialism): "nature, being, the material world determine consciousness (spiritual life) as something secondary and derivative." “The material life of society is independent of the will of the people” (“Diamat”, p. 13).

Antithesis freedom (idealism, the power of ideas): consciousness and spiritual life (ideas, theories, politics) determine the material life of society, organize, mobilize, transform it. The material life of society thus depends on the will of the people (Diamat, p. 15).

Or in short - thesis: being determines consciousness and antithesis: consciousness determines being.

What is the solution? It's even harder to find him. It is replaced by some "common sense" judgments that give the impression that no contradiction exists. Thus, first of all, one-sided idealism and materialism are denied. Common sense says no utopian idealism, not taking into account the conditions of the material life of society (“Diamat”, p. 14), and the same “no” - mechanical or "vulgar" materialism, who does not recognize "the mobilizing, organizing and transforming role of the idea" ("Diamat", p. 16), because then the party would not be needed, it would be doomed to "passivity, to vegetate" 25 .

In colloquial language, one can say that scientific fatalism and revolutionary fantasy are denied.

But common sense is not a philosophical dialectic, and colloquial reassurance is not a philosophical decision. Common sense says: the thesis is partly right, and the antithesis is partly right; it is necessary to preserve both the thesis and antithesis; The "general line" should go in the middle, leaning neither to the right nor to the left.

But dialectics does not recognize any “partly”, it thinks and sharpens the thesis and antithesis to the end: the thesis asserts that “the material life of society is independent of the will of people” (“Diamat”, p. 13), - the antithesis asserts that “material life society is dependent on the will of the people” (“Diamat”, p. 15), or, to express the antinomy more precisely and deeper: all completely determined, and therefore all there is natural necessity and matter (thesis) - and Not all there is nature and matter, there is also freedom and spirit(antithesis).

25 This acknowledges Stammler's ironic criticism: it is pointless to organize a party to promote solar eclipse» 62* .

26 "On the one hand, it is impossible not to confess, on the other hand, it is impossible not to confess..." 63*

None middle path does not exist here: or all, or not all, there is no middle ground between them. Thesis and antithesis cannot be kept together, for they are mutually exclusive; it is forbidden and at the same time necessary- that is the depth of the antinomy.

Can't we find something else in diamat that would give at least a semblance of a philosophical solution? We must trace all the possibilities of his dialectics, for here it is subject to the last and decisive test: here the fate of the entire materialistic world outlook is decided.

And here we find such an idea.

The thesis about the primacy of natural being and the secondary nature of consciousness, about the derivativeness of spiritual life, about the causation of ideas, theories, views by the conditions of the material life of society, speaks only of origin and the emergence of ideas, institutions, but not at all about their meaning; on the contrary, the antithesis means meaning, their role in history is recognized and supported (Diamat, p. 15).

Thus, the thesis speaks of genesis the antithesis speaks of meaning(gelten). This idea could lead to important results, but it is only abandoned and not developed here. Behind it lies the classic criticism of Stammler, which seems to be taken into account here: genetic(i.e., causal) explanation of the emergence of any idea, theory, any event in history tells us nothing about its fundamental significance, about the role that it is to play in history. But the "meaning" of any idea is determined evaluation its truth and legitimacy, its ability to solve the problem. The historical role of ideas and acts is determined not by causes and motives that always look backwards (“whence and why?”), but by goals and ideals that look ahead (“where and for what?”).

Significance something (gelten) means it value(Wert): Through the concept of "meaning" (gelten), German philosophy arrived at its theory of value (Wert), and here Diamat encountered the concept of value, for every action can be evaluated and is constantly evaluated.

Of this train of thought we, of course, we don't find in diamat: it has no category values and is afraid of it, because it leads to a completely different worldview: what is valuable is due, turned towards freedom, is the goal. And materialism is determinism, which banishes freedom and the choice of a goal ("rejecting," in Lenin's words, "the absurd fable about free will" 64*).

From the moment the consciousness begins to evaluate, set goals for itself and implement them, the soil of materialism leaves and the thesis of idealism begins to operate: “consciousness determines being”, the spirit forms matter.

Here a rather simple solution emerges of itself, which really seems to be present in diamat: is it not possible to say that at first being determines the consciousness of people, and then this consciousness, in turn, begins to determine being? Is it not possible to say that spiritual life (ideas, theories, views) is derived from material life and is conditioned by it, but then, in turn, produces a reverse effect on social being and on its material conditions (“Diamat”, pp. 13-15 )?

To say this does not mean to solve the antinomy, for there is no such "first" and "then": material causes can never cease to operate and being continuously continues to determine consciousness, determinism does not stop anywhere; the meaning of the materialistic worldview is that being always determines consciousness, but here it is said that it is only up to some point determines consciousness, and from a certain moment, on the contrary, consciousness begins to determine being.

This "always" and "not always" expresses an unresolved antinomy. To assert that the object first determines the subject, and then, on the contrary, the subject begins to determine the object, means to leave materialism and move on to a completely different worldview.

Just Schelling argues that the spirit genetically arises from material nature, but then acts back on matter and nature, forms and creates from it the realm of freedom and spiritual culture. Such a worldview underlies the Hegelian grandiose system of philosophy. It is clearly incompatible with materialistic monism, because when “consciousness begins to determine being,” then we enter the sphere of spiritual life, which is expressed with the help of completely different categories than the categories of material nature, is studied by completely different sciences (“sciences of the spirit”) and requires "philosophy of the spirit", which Hegel so brilliantly developed.

Let's think about what this statement means: "consciousness determines being"? It contains completely new categories, namely the categories: consciously goals, choice funds, choice between different possibilities, and most importantly - the category subject consciousness, personality, subject of action and cognition. All these categories were absent at the stage of physico-chemical and even biological being and were carefully expelled from the sciences of nature, from exact natural science 27 .

Nature does not act according to ends; a subject acting according to goals is no longer nature. Means, Not all is there nature? No, naturalism and materialism answer: all there is nature.

The antinomy has not been resolved; the thesis and antithesis still stand side by side: "being determines consciousness" and "consciousness determines being" - in their eternal dispute, in their incompatibility and in their incomprehensible combination. But now all the means of diamat have been exhausted. His "dialectic" has not matured to this problem. And consequently, his worldview is wrecked. It can stand firm only as long as it firmly holds on to this famous formula: it is not consciousness that determines being, but being that determines consciousness.

For a long time, friends, we did not communicate.

During this time, we managed to change several “beds” and re-register a bunch of different documents. But the best part is that we met unique (in every sense) people and managed to make friends with some of them.

If you are interested in our adventures, let us know, we will write, but for now I will move in the direction of the topic of today's post. So,

What did Karl Marx mean by saying that?

Did he exalt the way of life of man over personal consciousness? Or, after all, what is the consciousness of a person, such is his life?

It is important to decide on this as early as possible. Our perspectives and values are at stake. Do you understand what I mean?

When life rules

The other day I happened to visit a souvenir shop, which, among other things, sold unusual paintings. You have probably seen these: depending on the angle of view, a good-natured image turns into a terrible monster. And the price of such art is by no means cheap.

I wondered if they were buying it. The pensioner assured me that young people are more likely to fork out for such “art”. When I asked why, there was no positive answer. On the contrary, fear and hopelessness.

The woman complained that few young people are able to correctly understand the essence of things, which cannot but influence the decisions made. There is money - they spend it left and right, not realizing how much it brings (or moves away) from noble goals.

What about the older ones? In the first half of April, many will rush to churches and churches to celebrate Easter. Well, you remember - a mandatory phrase, Easter cakes with sweet sprinkles and colored eggs. Will the existence of that day be determined by human consciousness?

Like most of the young, the older generation of believers, with rare exceptions, is unable to sensibly substantiate their own. And consciousness requires answers.

Who exactly benefits from the fact that the ancient pagan symbols migrated to Christianity and build human existence? If tradition is important to God, why didn't he explicitly state it in the Scriptures?

For example, the death of Christ does have great importance both for Him and for us. That is why it is said about the Lord's Supper: "Do this in remembrance of me." Directly and firmly. But for some reason the so-called Christians honor another event in a special way: the day of resurrection.

Preferring not to delve into serious issues, people suppress consciousness. And after a few years they bitterly regret it, disappointed in everything and everyone, including themselves.

Many live in an effort to know as much as possible. And they die without knowing the most important

When being is determined by consciousness

Awareness of one's steps and responsibility for - signs of waking consciousness

Consciously guided people always know what they want from this life and build it, while others just watch from the sidelines, watch like Santa Barbara.

Decide on a vital idea. Let it become the meaning of your life for the next year (at least). Decided? Now we need intermediate measurable goals. Otherwise, you risk living your life in one day, which will eventually be called "Groundhog Day".

I was already offered this scenario 20 years ago: each “tomorrow” is an ordinary cloned “yesterday”. Work is home, work is home. Fortunately, my life path has always been measured not square meters. I hope you do too.

When talking about consciousness, it is important to think about the question “whose?” According to a prominent journalist, the idea of controlling public consciousness was born in the political lobby. One of the main tasks of those in power is to profitably put on the heroes involved in the film “white and black hats”.

Therefore, dear friends, we need to be careful so that public assessments do not turn our enemies into friends and friends into enemies. Do not rush to believe every word, no matter who it is.

The world, in which you and I are forced to create a good reputation for ourselves, has gone crazy a long time ago. And you and I cannot eliminate his psychiatric diagnosis.

Let those who in the world continue their struggle for the right to be the first to put on a white coat, and we, remaining neutral in these battles, make the right choice on the issue of how being determines consciousness.

I would be interested to know what helps you in this matter