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

The term “knowledge” is usually used in three main senses: 1. abilities, skills, skills, which are based on awareness of how to do something, to carry out; 2) any cognitively significant (in particular, adequate) information; 3) a special cognitive unit, an epistemological form of a person's relationship to reality, existing alongside and in interconnection with “his friend” - with a practical attitude. The second and third aspects are the subject of consideration 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 been of interest to people. The overwhelming majority of philosophers and scientists decide in the affirmative the question of whether the World is ringing. 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, revealing its laws 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 borne 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 cognition, but about finding out its capabilities and what it is in relation to reality. Second, 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. So, the German philosopher Hegel, being an objective idealist, criticized agnosticism, recognized the knowability of the world, developed a dialectical theory of knowledge, pointing out the activity of the subject in this process. However, he interpreted cognition as development, self-knowledge of the world spirit, an absolute idea.

Thirdly, the vitality of agnosticism is explained by the fact that it was able to grasp some real difficulties and complex problems of the cognitive process, which to this day have not received a final solution. These are, in particular, inexhaustibility, the boundaries of cognition, the impossibility of fully comprehending an eternally changing being, its subjective refraction in the human senses and thinking organs - limited in their capabilities, etc. Meanwhile, the most decisive refutation of agnosticism is contained in the sensory-objective activity of people. If they, cognizing certain phenomena, deliberately reproduce them, then there is no place for an “unknowable thing-in-itself”.

Unlike agnostics, supporters of skepticism do not deny the cognizability of the world, but either doubt the possibility of "th 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 " This approach invariably leads to subjectivity, although skepticism (especially "thinking") in a certain sense helps to overcome delusions 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, about the great, mighty Russian language, the statement about being and consciousness in Russian sounds ambiguous. What determines what: being, consciousness or consciousness - 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 on which certain forms of social consciousness correspond. 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" - the fundamental principle of materialism, in contrast to idealism, which states the opposite "Consciousness determines being" ("being is determined by consciousness")

The dispute between materialism and idealism is one of the insoluble, because it poses before humanity "eternal" questions to which there is no answer

— What came before, word or deed?
— What was there in the beginning, an egg or a chicken?
— What is more important, matter or spirit?

“Consciousness determines being in no way less than being determines consciousness. A strong economy is impossible without high culture, because only a cave society can be built with a cave consciousness ”(Igor Garin“ Prophets and Poets ”)

Vocabulary

• - one of the two main directions in philosophy, asserting 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. Denies the objective existence of the real world, recognizing as the only reality the subjective, individual sensations of a person. That is, the world is not what exists around, but what a person sees, perceives, how he feels it
• - a philosophical concept denoting life that does not depend on the perception of it by a person
• - a philosophical concept denoting a person's ability to think, to determine his attitude to reality

Being determines consciousness

Being determines consciousness
From the preface to "To 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: justification of someone's moods, preferences or shortcomings (joking ironic).

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

See what "Being determines consciousness" in other dictionaries:

Philos. a concept that denotes the presence of phenomena and objects by themselves or as a given in consciousness, and not their substantive aspect. It can be understood as a synonym for the concepts of "existence" and "being" or differ from them in one way or another in meaning ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

- (being razd.), being, pl. no, cf. 1. Existence, reality. Being determines consciousness. "Movement is a form of being of matter." Lenin. 2. Life, existence (obsolete, now ironic). His happy life will soon end. ❖ Genesis (church lit.) ... ... Explanatory dictionary Ushakova

being - BEING1, I, Wed Condition, set of conditions of material life of society; Syn .: reality. Being determines consciousness. BEING2, I, Wed The existence of someone, what l., The fullness of the manifestation of physical and spiritual forces; Syn .: life. The joys of being ...

being -, oya, cf. ** Being determines consciousness. // From the work of K. Marx "To the criticism of political economy" /. ◘ Of course, being determines consciousness. However, how many times, on the contrary, the persistent thieving consciousness determined being? Pr., 12/31/85. Why ... ... Explanatory dictionary of the language of the Soviets

Noun., P., Upotr. very often Morphology: (no) what? consciousness, what? consciousness, (see) what? consciousness, what? consciousness of what? about consciousness 1. Consciousness is the ability of a person to perceive and understand the surrounding reality. Development, ... ... Dmitriev's Explanatory Dictionary

consciousness - I, only units, with. 1) philos., Psychol. A person's ability 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) philosophy., only: being / Objective reality (matter, nature), existing independently of human consciousness. Objective, real being /. 2) The set of conditions for the material life of society. Public ... ... Dictionary of many expressions

consciousness - CONSCIOUSNESS1 and ((stl 8)) CONSCIOUSNESS ((/ stl 8)), I, Wed Special .. The 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 (highlighting this or that element distinguished as a foreground) and identifications of the distinguished. In correlation with the world as the distinctiveness of existence, S. forms ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

CONSCIOUSNESS - CONSCIOUSNESS. In empirical psychology, S. is understood as such a connection of simultaneous and replacing each other in time, psycho, processes, leading to paradise leads to cognition of reality and the regulation of the relationship of the individual with the world around him (oh ... ... Big medical encyclopedia

Books

• Prophets and Poets (set of 8 books), I. Garin. Consciousness determines being no less than being determines consciousness. A strong economy is impossible without high culture, because only a cave society can be built with a cave consciousness. ...

Let us now see what the catechism of diamat gives for solving this antinomy. It is not so easy to find out, because the antinomy is expressed vaguely, unstoppily, and nondialectically. We can, however, compel dialecticism, using its own words, to formulate the thesis and antithesis precisely.

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

Antithesisfreedoms (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 people ("Diamat", p. 15).

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

What is the solution? It is even more difficult to find it. 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 reckoning with 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 stagnation" 25.

In colloquial language, we can say that scientific fatalism and revolutionary fiction are denied.

But common sense is not a philosophical dialectic, and colloquial tranquility is not a philosophical solution. Common sense says: the thesis is partly right, and the antithesis is partly right; it is necessary to preserve both the thesis and the antithesis; The “general line” should run in the middle, not leaning to the right or to the left.

But dialectics does not recognize any "partly", it thinks and sharpens the thesis and antithesis to the end: the thesis claims that "the material life of society is independent of the will of people" (Diamat, p. 13), - the antithesis states that "material life society is dependent on the will of people ”(“ Diamat ”, p. 15), or, to express the antinomy more precisely and deeper: allis entirely deterministic, and therefore allthere is a natural necessity and matter (thesis) - and not allthere is nature and matter, there is still freedom and spirit(antithesis).

25 Stammler's ironic criticism admits that it is pointless to organize a party to promote solar eclipse"62 *.

26 "On the one hand, one cannot but confess, on the other hand, one cannot but confess ..." 63 *

No middlepath doesn't 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; can'tand at the same time necessary- that is the depth of the antinomy.

Can't we find something else in the dialectic 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 materialist world outlook is decided.

And so we find such a thought.

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

Thus, the thesis speaks about genesis- the antithesis speaks of meaning(gelten). This thought 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: geneticThe (i.e., causal) explanation of the emergence of any idea, theory, or any event in history tells us nothing about its fundamental significance, about the role that it has to play in history. But the "meaning" of any idea is determined assessmentits truthfulness and legitimacy, its ability to solve the task. The historical role of ideas and acts is determined not by causes and motives that always look backward ("where and why?"), But goals and ideals that look forward ("where and for what?").

Significanceanything (gelten) means it value(Wert): through the concept of "meaning" (gelten) German philosophy came to its theory of value (Wert), and here the dialectic clash with the concept of value, because every action can be evaluated and is constantly evaluated.

Of this train of thought we, of course, do not findin diamat: it has no category valuesand is afraid of it, because it leads to a completely different worldview: the valuable is the due, addressed to freedom, is the goal. And materialism is determinism, banishing freedom and the choice of goals ("rejecting," as Lenin put it, "the absurd tale of free will" 64 *).

From the moment consciousness begins to evaluate, set goals and realize them, the soil of materialism is abandoned and the thesis of idealism begins to operate: “consciousness determines being,” spirit forms matter.

Here, by itself, a rather simple solution emerges, which really seems to be present in the dialectic: is it not possible to say that 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 the opposite effect on social being and its material conditions (Diamat, pp. 13-15 )?

To say this does not mean to solve the antinomy, for there is no such “first” and “later”: material causes can never cease to act and being continuously continues to determine consciousness, determinism never ceases; the meaning of the materialistic worldview is that being is alwaysdefines consciousness, but here it is said that it is only until some pointdetermines consciousness, and from some moment, on the contrary, consciousness begins to determine being.

This "always" and "not always" expresses an unresolved antinomy. To assert that first the object determines the subject, and then, on the contrary, the subject begins to determine the object, is to get out of materialism and move on to a completely different outlook.

Schelling asserts that spirit genetically arises from material nature, but then acts back on matter and nature, forms and creates from it the kingdom of freedom and spiritual culture. This outlook is at the heart of Hegel's 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 category 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 us think about what this statement means: “consciousness determines being”? It contains completely new categories, namely the categories: deliberately set goals,choice funds,choice between different options, and most importantly - category subjectconsciousness, personality, subject of action and cognition. All these categories were absent at the level of physicochemical and even biological being and were carefully banished from the natural sciences, from exact natural science 27.

Nature does not act for purposes; the subject acting according to goals is no longer nature. Hence, not allis there nature? No, naturalism and materialism answer: allthere is nature.

The antinomy is not resolved; the thesis and the 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 outlook on the world is crumbling. It can stand firm only as long as it holds firmly to this famous formula: it is not consciousness that determines being, but being that determines consciousness.

It's been a long time, friends, we haven't communicated.

During this time, we managed to change several "sleeping places" and reissue a bunch of different documents. But the best part is that we got to know unique (in every sense) people and managed to make friends with some of them.

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

what did Karl Marx mean when he said that?

Did he extol the way of human life over personal consciousness? Or is it all the same, 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 \u200b\u200bare at stake. Do you understand what I mean?

When being rules

The other day I happened to visit a gift shop, which, among other things, sold unusual paintings. You've 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 a penny.

I wondered if it was being bought. The retired salesperson assured me that young people are more likely to fork out for such "art". There was no positive answer to my question why. 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 removes) from noble goals.

And what about those who are older? In the first half of April, many will rush to churches and churches to celebrate Easter. Well, you remember - the obligatory phrase, cakes with sweet sprinkles and colored eggs. Will the existence of that day be determined by human consciousness?

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

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

For example, the death of Christ does have enormous importance both for Him and for us. That is why it is said about the Lord's Supper: "Do this in remembrance of me." Straight and firm. But the so-called Christians, for some reason, 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 thing

When being is determined by consciousness

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

People who are guided by consciousness always know what they want from this life and build it, while others just watch from the sidelines, observe like Santa Barbara.

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

About 20 years ago I was already offered this scenario: every “tomorrow” is an ordinary cloned “yesterday”. Work is home, work is home. Fortunately, my life path has never been measured square meters... I hope you do as well.

While talking about consciousness, it is important to think about the question "whose?" According to the prominent journalist, the idea of \u200b\u200bmanaging public consciousness was born on the political sidelines. One of the main tasks of those in power is to put on “white and black hats” on the heroes involved in the film.

Therefore, dear friends, we need to be careful that public assessments do not turn our enemies into friends, and friends into enemies. Take your time to believe every word, no matter whoever it is.

The world in which you and I are forced to create a good reputation for ourselves has gone mad 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 in the question of how being determines consciousness.

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