A philosophical question is a question. Basic or basic questions of philosophy
Philosophy as an established system of knowledge has a number of issues that it is designed to solve. Each philosophical system has its own core, main question, the disclosure of which is its content and essence. But there are general questions that reveal the nature of philosophical thinking as such. First of all, the question of relationship between the world and man. This question follows from the very subject of philosophy, so it is customary to call it "The Fundamental Question of Philosophy". Since matter and consciousness (spirit) are two inextricably linked, but at the same time opposite characteristics of being, the main question of philosophy has two sides, two aspects - ontological and epistemological:
What comes first, spirit or matter, ideal or material?
do we know the world? What is primary in the process of cognition?
The solution of this issue depends on the general understanding of being and cognition, as well as the construction of the entire system of knowledge about the world around us and the place of man in it. Depending on the solution of the first aspect of the Main Question, major philosophical trends are distinguished - idealism and materialism. A number of categories and principles are formulated that contribute to the disclosure of philosophy as a general methodology of knowledge.
The division into idealism and materialism has existed for a long time. German philosopher of the 17th - 18th centuries. G.V. Leibniz called Epicurus the greatest materialist, and Plato- the greatest idealist. The classical definition of both directions was first formulated by the prominent German philosopher F. Schlegel. F. Engels also proposed his own formulation.
The advantages of materialism are reliance on science, on the universal common sense, as well as logical and practical, experimental provability of many provisions. The weak side of materialism is an insufficient and unconvincing explanation of the essence and origin of consciousness, as well as many other phenomena that modern science cannot explain. The strength of idealism is the analysis of many mechanisms and forms of consciousness and thinking. A weak feature of idealism is the absence of a reliable (logical) explanation for the very existence of “pure ideas” and the transformation of a “pure idea” into a concrete thing, i.e. the mechanism of the emergence and interaction of matter and ideas.
The question of the origins of being is also connected with the question of the organization of being and, accordingly, of approaches to its study. There are three main positions here.
Monism - This philosophical concept according to which the world has only one beginning. Such a beginning can be either material or spiritual substance.
Dualism is a philosophical doctrine that affirms the complete equality of the two principles: matter and consciousness, physical and mental (R. Descartes).
Pluralism - This is a philosophical doctrine that affirms the plurality of bases and principles of being (the theory of the four elements - fire, water, earth and air).
In epistemological terms (the second side of the main question of philosophy), philosophers single out epistemological optimism and agnosticism. Representatives epistemological optimism(as a rule, materialists) believe that the world is cognizable, and the possibilities of cognition are unlimited. The opposite point of view is held agnostics(I. Kant, Protagoras), who believed that the world is in principle unknowable, and the possibilities of cognition are essentially limited by the possibilities of the human mind.
In methodological terms, the second side of the Basic Question of Philosophy involves the division of thinkers into empiricists and rationalists. Empiricism(F. Bacon, D. Locke) proceeds from the fact that knowledge can be based only on experience and sensory sensations. Rationalism(Pythagoras, Democritus, Descartes) believes that reliable knowledge can be derived directly from the mind and does not depend on sensory experience.
Thus, the main question of philosophy determines the general principles of world perception, the process of cognition of the world, as well as the principles of human activity in relation to objective reality.
3. Structure and functions f. knowledge.
Philosophy can be predefined as the doctrine of the general principles of being, cognition and thinking. In contrast to mythology and religion, philosophy acts as a rational worldview. This rationality means:
philosophy acts as thinking in generalizing concepts, and not in images;
philosophy is looking for a reasonable order in the world;
philosophical thinking is logical and orderly;
philosophers logically prove and substantiate their views and positions;
philosophical thinking is critical and self-critical.
Despite the high level of rationality, philosophy differs significantly from science, scientific knowledge. Firstly, philosophy introduces into its subject of comprehension of the world not “factual data”, like other sciences, but already received and processed information about the objects and processes of the world. It is a universal intellectual and humanitarian discipline that seeks to systematically comprehend the knowledge gained and, on this basis, to explain being in a comprehensive, generalized and holistic way.
Secondly, the philosopher relies not only on facts and logic, like a scientist, but also on intuition. Each philosopher is initially inspired by some great idea that has illuminated him, by one deep moral experience that tells not only his mind, but also his heart where, on what path to seek the truth. The mind only revealed, deduced the consequences that flowed from the accepted system of relations and values.
Third, value-oriented, spiritual and practical , i.e. essentially a worldview type of philosophical consciousness. Scientific knowledge in itself is indifferent to the meanings, goals, values and interests of a person. On the contrary, philosophical knowledge is the knowledge of the place and role of man in the world. Such knowledge is deeply personal and imperative; obliges to a certain way of life and action. Philosophical truth is objective, but it is experienced by each person in his own way, in accordance with personal life and moral experience. Only in this way does knowledge become a conviction, which a person will defend and defend to the end, even at the cost of his own life.
Fourth, the focus of philosophy per person . The philosopher is not satisfied with an objective picture of the world. He necessarily "inscribes" a person in it. Man's relation to the world is an eternal subject of philosophy. And if science develops the means and methods of human activity, then philosophy formulates the goals of this activity. Exactly goal setting function and value-semantic evaluation most fundamentally distinguishes philosophy from science.
And finally, fifthly, the presence self-reflection , i.e. conversion philosophical thought on itself, the desire to critically comprehend the origins and nature of philosophizing. Only philosophy as one of the main problems of its analysis can raise the question "What is philosophy?".
Now, on the basis of the brief analysis done, it became possible to formulate the specifics philosophical knowledge. The specifics of philosophy is that it:
is extremely abstract, generalized knowledge;
studies its objects as a whole ( human problem, being, etc.);
acts as a theoretical worldview with its own special conceptual and categorical apparatus;
acts as a methodological basis for all other sciences;
is a set of objectified knowledge and values, moral ideals of its time;
has the function of goal-setting and search for the meaning of life;
studies not only the subject of knowledge, but also the mechanism of knowledge itself;
self-criticism and reflexivity;
inexhaustible in its essence, has insoluble, "eternal" problems (the essence and origin of being, the origin of life, the presence of God).
Philosophy- This a specific ideological science about the most general connections and relations in the world, primarily between the world and man.
The structure of philosophical knowledge:
ontology - the doctrine of being;
epistemology - the doctrine of knowledge;
dialectics - the doctrine of development;
anthropology - the study of man;
social philosophy - the doctrine of society;
axiology - the doctrine of values
ethics - the doctrine of due;
logic - the doctrine of the laws of correct thinking;
Philosophical disciplines are not mechanical parts of the whole, which can be separated from it and considered independently of its other parts. Here another image is more suitable: a precious crystal and its facets. With each turn of the crystal, more and more of its facets are highlighted, although the crystal itself remains the same.
It is customary to single out the following main functions of philosophy: cognitive (epistemological); explanatory; worldview; reflective; integrative (synthetic); goal-setting function; methodological; heuristic; social; appraisal; educational; prognostic.
Philosophy cannot save society from wars, conflicts, hunger, despotism of power and other negative phenomena. But it can and must protect the system of ethical values of society, the system of principles and norms of social life and behavior from the penetration into it of false and still unverified, ethically vicious and adventurous, primitive and extremist.
The question of the beginning is one of the most important questions of philosophy, from which, in fact, this science begins. What is the basis of the world: material or spiritual principle? This question cannot be bypassed by any developed philosophical system. The relationship between matter and consciousness is a universal philosophical principle that has found its most complete expression in the fundamental question of philosophy.
The main question of philosophy, the question of the relation of thinking to being, was first clearly formulated by F. Engels, who pointed out two aspects of it. The first (ontological) side is the question of what is primary and determining: being (matter) or thinking (consciousness), in other words, nature or spirit? Material or ideal? The second (epistemological) side is the question of whether the world is cognizable, whether thinking is capable of cognizing the world as it actually exists.
We have to remind these elementary truths classical philosophy, since today one cannot read about them either in the New Philosophical Encyclopedia, or in many dictionaries and university textbooks. And in works that somehow touch upon the fundamental question of philosophy, Engels's position is distorted, the struggle between materialism and idealism in the history of philosophy is denied and it is stated that each philosophy has its own "basic question" or even several. Thus, the basic question of philosophy disappears, because it dissolves into an infinite number of other questions of this science. G. D. Levin bitterly states: “From the revolutionary changes that have taken place in Russian philosophy, it breathes some kind of intellectual cowardice. From textbooks and reference manuals, silently, without any explanation, they remove provisions that were once considered fundamental, cornerstones ... The main question of philosophy, this “backbone” disappeared from them. dialectical materialism» [Levin 2004: 160]. Levin is against excluding the fundamental question of philosophy from the course of philosophy. “This outstanding scientific result of Engels,” he writes, “needs only to be thought out to the end and formulated at the modern level” [Ibid.].
Indeed, philosophy, seeking to give a holistic view of the world, cannot bypass the question of the relationship between the material and the spiritual, and depending on the answer to its ontological side philosophical teachings occupy two fundamentally different positions. The existence of materialism and idealism as two opposite directions is an indisputable fact of the history of philosophy, which was registered long before the formulation of F. Engels. A. Schopenhauer, for example, wrote: “All systems until now started either from matter, which gave materialism, or from the spirit, from the soul, which gave idealism, or at least spiritualism” [Schopenhauer 2001: 55].
Attempts at a reasoned criticism of the "main issue" in modern Russian philosophy were made by Academician T. I. Oizerman and our well-known philosopher A. L. Nikiforov. Nikiforov correctly notes that during the period of the monopoly domination of Marxist philosophy, some philosophers absolutized the main question of philosophy, considered it almost the only philosophical problem. For example, A.V. Potemkin wrote: “The question of the relation of thinking to being is not one of the many questions that stand on a par with them, and in this sense it is not the main question along with non-basic ones, but the essence of all questions. All philosophical questions are contained within its boundaries” [Potemkin 1973: 130].
Potemkin, of course, is wrong, but what does F. Engels have to do with it? Nikiforov, on the other hand, interprets Engels precisely in the sense that the main question of philosophy “occupies a central place in every system” [Nikiforov 2001: 88]. But this is a clear distortion of Engels' position. Considering the basic question of philosophy in the history of philosophy, Engels nowhere says that it occupies a central place or is the only question of any philosophy. He focuses only on the fact that, depending on his decision, philosophers are divided into materialists and idealists: “Philosophers were divided into two large camps according to how they answered this question. Those who maintained that the spirit existed before nature, and who therefore ultimately acknowledged the creation of the world in one way or another ... constituted the idealist camp. Those who considered nature to be the main principle joined the various schools of materialism. The expressions idealism and materialism originally mean nothing else, and it is only in this sense that they are used here” [Marx, Engels 1961: 283].
Nikiforov believes that it follows from the formulation given by Engels that “from the very beginning of its inception, philosophy should have dealt with it” [Nikiforov 2001: 82]. But this is again an incorrect interpretation of Engels. When Engels says that “the great basic question of all philosophy, especially the latest one, is the question of the relation of thinking to being,” he uses the concept of “all” not in a divisive, but in a collective sense, that is, not every philosophy considers it, all the more on initial stage its development. Engels wrote that this question has its roots, no less than any religion, in the limited and ignorant ideas of people of the period of savagery, “but it could be posed with all sharpness, could acquire all its significance only after the population of Europe had awakened from the long hibernation of the Christian Middle Ages” [Marx, Engels 1961: 283].
Referring to the fact that philosophical concepts, including “matter” and “consciousness”, acquire a specific meaning in different philosophical systems, Nikiforov writes: retains the same meaning in all philosophical systems. However, the fact of changing the meanings of philosophical concepts shows that this assumption is erroneous” [Nikiforov 2001: 85]. But if we agree with this thesis of A. L. Nikiforov, which denies the existence of a common philosophical concepts, then it will not be clear at all how philosophers can understand each other. Fortunately, since Democritus and Plato, philosophers are well aware of the differences between materialists and idealists.
Initially, the problem of the relationship between matter and consciousness was posed in a purely ontological terms, in terms of clarifying the place of the "soul" in the general system material world. But already Plato clearly distinguishes and contrasts two types of philosophers. The former teach that everything happened due to nature and chance, “they look at fire, water, earth and air as the first principles of all things, and this is what they call nature. They derive the soul later from these first principles” [Laws 891C]. Other philosophers argue that everything "that exists by nature, and nature itself ... arose later from art and reason and is subject to them," and that "the beginning is the soul, and not fire and air, for the soul is primary" [Ibid. : 892C]. If anything "exists by nature," it is the soul, and the body is secondary to the soul. In the Laws, Plato directly connects idealism with theism, and materialism with atheism.
The denial of the main question of philosophy in its classical expression occurs, according to A. L. Nikiforov, on the grounds that supposedly every philosopher is free to consider the one he studies to be the main question for himself and all philosophy. For F. Bacon, for example, the main issue was the expansion of power over nature through inventions, for J.-J. Rousseau - the question of social inequality, for K. Helvetius - the question of ways to achieve happiness, for I. Kant - the question of the essence of man, for A. Camus - the problem of suicide.
One of the arguments proving that the basic question of philosophy is present in any fundamental philosophical system is: “It does not matter that the philosopher subjectively does not recognize and does not consider this problem, objectively he decides it after all, and his decision - though not explicitly expressed by himself - has an implicit but powerful influence on everything he does. Considering this argument, Nikiforov writes that he "makes him laugh with his defiant incorrectness", and states: "It is better to rely on what the thinker himself said and wrote" [Nikiforov 2001: 88]. It turns out that if, for example, G. W. F. Hegel came to the conclusion that the development of world philosophy ends with his philosophical system, then it is so, we must agree with this. Or another example. E. Mach, as you know, did not consider himself a philosopher, he constantly repeated: “There is no philosophy of Mach!” However, in almost every study guide in the history of philosophy empirio-criticism, that is, the philosophy of Mach, is devoted to either a whole chapter or several pages. Thus, the facts of the history of philosophy, which could be continued, testify to the fact that it is far from always possible to rely on what this or that thinker says about his philosophy.
A. L. Nikiforov believes that “any of the fundamental problems can act as the “basic question of philosophy”, and as an example he cites the problem of the relationship between the empirical and the theoretical. He comes to the conclusion that “each philosophical system has its own main question (perhaps several), the solution of which affects the interpretation and solution of other issues discussed in the system. And these questions will inevitably be different for different systems” (Nikiforov 2001: 86). But is it possible to equate different approaches in solving certain philosophical issues within the framework of one philosophy with the main philosophical trends?
Academician T. I. Oizerman takes a similar position with regard to the main question of philosophy. In the Soviet period, being one of the most famous researchers and propagandists of Marxist philosophy in general and the philosophy of dialectical materialism in particular, he wrote: “The antithesis of materialism and idealism is the result of a radical polarization of philosophical teachings into main, mutually exclusive directions. Eclecticism, that is, an attempt to “supplement” one of the main philosophical teachings with others in order to overcome their “one-sidedness”, is in fact a combination of the incompatible. Therefore, eclecticism characterizes, as a rule, insignificant philosophical teachings” [Oizerman 1983a: 107].
Today, T. I. Oizerman has changed his views to the opposite, he already denies the main question of philosophy, speaks of the presence in philosophy of many questions “which can and should be called basic, fundamental”, and denies the existence of a struggle between materialists and idealists in the history of philosophy. The materialists, he said, expressed only critical remarks about the idealists, and the idealists considered it unnecessary to substantiate their views to the materialists. “A vivid example of this,” he writes, “is the French materialism of the 18th century, which wages a resolute struggle against religion and only rarely speaks about idealism, briefly and, of course, negatively” [Ob 2005: 38].
But do religion and idealism solve the question of the relationship between the spiritual and the material in different ways? And isn't fighting religion form struggle against idealism? F. Engels says: “The question of the relation of thinking to being, of what is primary: spirit or nature, is this question, which, however, played a large role in medieval scholasticism, contrary to the Church, took on a sharper form: was the world created by God or has it existed from time immemorial? [Marx, Engels, vol. 21: 283]. Engels writes that only in the era of the collapse of the medieval worldview could the fundamental question of philosophy "be posed with all sharpness." And this can be seen, for example, from the polemics of T. Hobbes with Bishop Bramgall, D. Berkeley - with "Hylas" as a collective image of atheists and materialists, and P. A. Holbach - with secular and church idealists. The subjective idealist Berkeley is known to be the most implacable opponent and critic of materialism.
T. I. Oizerman, like A. L. Nikiforov, distorts the position of Engels, attributes to him the idea that the fundamental question of philosophy is the only question that philosophy should deal with. He writes: “So, the thesis about a single “highest question of all philosophy” turned out to be a myth debunked by the very development of philosophy. It is clear that if this question occupied the place indicated to it by Engels, then it would not be worthwhile to study philosophy”, especially since this “question has long been resolved” [Oizerman 2005: 47].
Considering the question of the cognizability of the world, Oizerman writes that “it is not at all the second side of what Engels called the highest question of philosophy. For Engels emphasizes that both materialists and idealists, as a rule, give a positive answer to this question, recognize the fundamental cognizability of the world. Therefore, this question in no way expresses the opposition between these directions. An attempt to logically derive the proposition about the cognizability (or unknowability) of the world from an alternative solution to the question of the relationship between the spiritual and the material is clearly untenable” [Ibid: 39].
No one will argue with the thesis that the question of the cognizability of the world is not directly related to the division of philosophers into materialists and idealists. As we see, F. Engels also agrees with this. Although, on the whole, consistent materialism is associated with the fundamental cognizability of the world, and idealism brought to its logical end is associated with agnosticism. T. I. Oizerman himself spoke about this very convincingly in his time. It is not clear why he identifies the fundamental question of philosophy with its first side. After all, the first side is the question of the primacy of matter or spirit, and the second side is the question of the cognizability of the world, these are different sides of the main question of philosophy, the question of the relationship between matter and thought.
Discussing the errors of the classics of Marxist philosophy, T. I. Oizerman believes that V. I. Lenin was mistaken when he called reflection a universal property of matter, akin to sensation. “... It is logical to assume,” Lenin wrote, “that all matter has a property that is essentially related to sensation, the property of reflection” [Lenin, vol. 18: 31]. But even if we admit, says Oizerman, that reflection takes place at all levels of the development of matter, “this does not mean at all that all matter has a property akin to sensation. The study of life shows that such a property related to sensation is irritability, which, of course, is not inherent in inorganic nature” [Oizerman 1999: 59].
A. L. Nikiforov also considers the same problem, trying to prove, using the example of the concept of P. Teilhard de Chardin, that the main question of philosophy does not work in practice. He states that Teilhard de Chardin, as a scientist, recognizes the primacy of matter in relation to the spirit "in the sense that the origin of life and the subsequent emergence of the human mind is based on the complication of the structure of material forms" [Nikiforov 2001: 94]. Indeed, considering the evolution of the universe, passing through a series of increasingly complex forms from elementary particles to human society, Teilhard de Chardin suggests that even inorganic structures, "if we consider matter from the very bottom", must have something inherent in it, from which consciousness will subsequently develop. [Teilhard de Chardin 1985: 55]. Thus, Nikiforov concludes, "for Teilhard there is no question of what is primary - matter or consciousness, because in its most elementary manifestations matter carries the germs of the subsequent psyche" [Nikiforov 2001: 95]. Speaking about the concept of Teilhard de Chardin, Nikiforov cannot decide on his philosophical position: who is he - a materialist, an idealist or a dualist? He writes: "The place of Teilhard in the dichotomy "materialism - idealism" is very, very unclear" [Ibid: 94]. Proceeding from this, he proposes to abandon the belief in the “basic question of philosophy”, according to which we should supposedly “place every philosopher in the Procrustean bed of our primitive schematism” [Ibid: 95].
Actually there is no problem here. According to materialistic philosophy, thinking is an attributive property of matter, since it is one of the forms of reflection, its highest form. Even D. Diderot believed that matter has "sensitivity" as its general essential property. He argued that the difference between the psyche of man and animals is due to differences in their bodily organization, but this does not contradict the idea that the ability to sense is a universal property of matter [Didero 1941: 143]. From the positions of modern materialism (and here Lenin is certainly right) we cannot speak of matter devoid of, at least in the embryo, an elementary mental principle. E. V. Ilyenkov in his work “Cosmology of the Spirit” writes: “Without committing a crime against the axioms of dialectical materialism, we can say that matter constantly has thinking, constantly thinks of itself. This, of course, does not mean that in each of its particles, at every moment, it has the ability to think and actually thinks. This is true in relation to it as a whole, as a substance infinite in time and space” [Ilyenkov 1991: 415].
As for the concept of Teilhard de Chardin as a whole, it is indeed contradictory. As you know, this philosopher sought to develop a worldview that would be both scientific and religious. As a scientist, he recognizes certain creative possibilities for matter, speaks of the primacy of matter in relation to the spirit. Here he is a materialist. As a theologian, he believes that matter itself is involved in the flow of development by "spirit". Postulating the existence of a single cosmic energy, psychic in nature, Teilhard de Chardin interprets the self-development of the material world in the spirit of the concept of "continuing divine creation." Here he is an idealist. If we ignore the basic question of philosophy, then this concept would indeed be difficult to understand.
The main question of philosophy, as already noted, cannot be absolutized, since the content of the basic ideas of materialism and idealism is of a concrete historical nature. Materialism and idealism did not always constitute two mutually impenetrable "camps"; in solving some issues they touched and even crossed. Many philosophers, such as I. Kant or P. Teilhard de Chardin, solved some issues from the standpoint of materialism, and others from the standpoint of idealism. classical system objective idealism G. V. F. Hegel, according to F. Engels, “both in method and in content is only materialism idealistically put on its head” [Marx, Engels, vol. 21: 285].
In other words, it is possible to divide all philosophers into materialists and idealists only with a certain degree of conventionality, since their positions in solving some issues may coincide. But still, the question of the relationship between matter and consciousness is not accidentally called the main one. The division of philosophers into materialists and idealists is quite legitimate, it cannot be removed from the real history of philosophy. It is necessary, firstly, because the very nature of philosophical theories and the solution of many others depend on this or that solution of the fundamental question of philosophy. philosophical problems. Secondly, the main question of philosophy allows us to better understand the specifics and structure of philosophical knowledge, continuity, similarity and difference in the development of philosophical schools in the history of philosophy and in its current state.
Literature
Didro D. Selected Philosophical Works. M., 1941.
Ilyenkov E. V. Cosmology of the Spirit / E. V. Ilyenkov // Philosophy and Culture. M., 1991. S. 415–437.
Levin G.D. Experience of philosophical repentance // Questions of Philosophy. 2004. No. 6. S. 160–169.
Lenin V. I. Materialism and empirio-criticism / V. I. Lenin // Full. coll. op. T. 18. S. 31.
Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 21. M.: Gospolitizdat, 1961.
Nikiforov A.L. The Nature of Philosophy. Fundamentals of philosophy. M., 2001.
Oizerman T. I. Hegel and materialistic philosophy // Questions of Philosophy. 1983a. No. 3.
Oizerman T. I. The main question of philosophy // Philosophical encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 1983b.
Oizerman T. I. Basic questions of philosophy // Questions of philosophy. 2005. No. 5. S. 37–48.
Oizerman T. I. Philosophy as a history of philosophy. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 1999.
Potemkin A. V. On the specifics of philosophical knowledge. Rostov n / D., 1973.
Teilhard de Chardin P. The Phenomenon of Man. M., 1985.
Schopenhauer A. New Paralipomena / A. Schopenhauer // Collection. cit.: in 6 vols. Vol. 6. From the manuscript heritage. M., 2001.
“The positive solution of this problem is fundamentally different in materialism and idealism. Materialists see in cognition a reflection in human consciousness of a reality independent of it. Idealists, on the other hand, oppose the theory of reflection, interpret cognitive activity either as a combination of sensory data, or as the construction of objects of knowledge by means of a priori categories, or as a purely logical process of obtaining new conclusions from existing axioms or assumptions” [Oizerman 1983b: 468].
Our appearance in this Universe is too strange an event that cannot be expressed in words. The vanity of our Everyday life makes us take our existence for granted. But whenever we try to reject this everyday life and think deeply about what is happening, the question arises: why does the Universe have all this and why does it obey such precise laws? Why does anything even exist? We live in a universe with spiral galaxies, northern lights and Scrooge McDuck. And as Sean Carroll says, “Nothing in modern physics explains why we have these laws and not others, although some physicists take the liberty of arguing about this and are mistaken - they could avoid it if they took philosophers seriously.” As far as philosophers are concerned, the best they have come up with is the anthropic principle that our particular universe manifests in this way because of our presence as observers in it. Not a very convenient and in some ways even an overloaded concept.
Is our universe real?
This is a classic Cartesian question. Essentially, the question is, how do we know that we are seeing the real thing around us, and not a great illusion created by some invisible force (which Rene Descartes called a possible "evil demon")? More recently, this question has become associated with the "brain in a vat" problem, or the simulation argument. It may well be that we are the product of a deliberate simulation. Therefore, the deeper question is whether the civilization that runs the simulation is also an illusion - a kind of supercomputer regression, immersion in simulations. Perhaps we are not who we think we are. Assuming that the people who run the simulation are also part of it, our true selves can be suppressed so that we can better absorb the experience. This philosophical question forces us to rethink what we consider "real". Modal realists argue that if the universe around us seems rational (and not shaky, vague, false, like a dream), then we have no choice but to declare it real and authentic. Or, as Cypher from The Matrix put it, "bliss in ignorance."
Do we have free will?
The dilemma of determinism is that we don't know whether our actions are driven by a causal chain of prior events (or through outside influences) or whether we are truly free agents making decisions of our own free will. Philosophers (and scientists) have debated this subject for millennia, and there is no end to the debate. If our decision making is driven by an endless chain of cause and effect, then there is determinism and we don't have free will. If the opposite, non-determinism, is true, our actions must be random - which, according to some, is also not free will. On the other hand, metaphysical libertarians (not to be confused with political libertarians, they are different people) talk about compatibilism - the doctrine that free will is logically compatible with determinism. Compounding the problem are breakthroughs in neurosurgery that have shown our brains make decisions before we even think about them. But if we don't have free will, why did we evolve as conscious beings and not zombies? further complicates the problem by assuming that we live in a universe of probabilities, and any determinism is impossible in principle.
Linas Vepstas said the following about this:
“Consciousness seems to be intimately and inseparably connected with the perception of the passage of time, and also with the fact that the past is fixed and completely determined, and the future is unknowable. If the future were predetermined, there would be no free will and no point in participating in the flow of time.”
Does God exist?
We cannot know whether God exists or not. Atheists and believers are wrong in their statements, but agnostics are right. True agnostics take a Cartesian position, recognizing the epistemological problems and limitations of human cognition. We don't know enough about inner work universe to make grandiose claims about the nature of reality and whether there is a high power. Many people welcome naturalism - the assumption that the universe works according to autonomous processes - but it does not exclude the presence of a grand design that set everything in motion (so-called deism). Or the gnostics are right, and powerful beings do exist in depths of reality that we don't know about. They don't have to be the omniscient, omnipotent gods of the Abrahamic traditions, but will still be (supposedly) powerful. And again, these are not scientific questions - they are more platonic thought experiments that make us think about the limits of knowable and human experience.
Is there life after death?
Before you start protesting, we won't talk about the fact that we will all one day be on the clouds, with harps in our hands, or boil forever in hellish cauldrons. Since we can't ask the dead if there's anything on the other side, we're left wondering what's next. Materialists assume that there is no life after death, but this is just an assumption that cannot be verified. Looking at this universe (or multiverse), through a Newtonian or Einsteinian lens, or perhaps through the eerie filter of quantum mechanics, there is no reason to believe that we have only one chance to live this life. This is a metaphysical question, and it is possible that the cycles of the cosmos (as Carl Sagan said, "everything that is and that was, will still be"). Hans Moravec put it even better when he said that under the many-worlds interpretation, "non-observation" of this universe is impossible: we will always observe this universe in one form or another, being alive. Alas, although this idea is damn controversial and contradictory, it is not yet possible (and will not be presented) to clarify it scientifically.
Can anything be taken objectively?
There is a difference between an objective understanding of the world (or at least an attempt to do so) and its perception in an exclusively objective framework. This is the problem with qualia - the notion that our environment can only be observed through the filter of our feelings and thoughts in our minds. Everything you know, see, touch, smell, everything has passed through a multi-layered filter of physiological and cognitive processes. Hence, your subjective perception of this world is unique. A classic example: the subjective perception of red can vary from person to person. The only way to test this is to somehow see this world through the "prism of consciousness" of another person - this is unlikely to become possible in the near future. Roughly speaking, the universe can only be observed through the brain (or possible thought machine), and therefore only subjectively interpreted. But assuming that the universe is logically coherent and (to some extent) knowable, can we assume that its true objective qualities will never be observed or known? Much of Buddhist philosophy is based on this assumption and is the exact opposite of Platonic idealism.
What is the best value system?
We will never be able to draw a clear line between "good" and "bad" deeds. At various times in history, however, philosophers, theologians, and politicians have claimed to have found The best way evaluations of human actions and determined the most righteous code of conduct. But it's not that easy. Life is far more complex and intricate than a universal system of moral or absolute values would suggest. The idea that you should treat others as you would like to be treated is great, but it leaves no room for justice (like punishing criminals) and can even be used to justify oppression. And yes, it doesn't always work. For example, is it necessary to sacrifice the few to save the many? Who deserves to be saved: a human child or an adult monkey? Our views on good and bad change from time to time, and the appearance of a superhuman mind can completely turn our value system upside down.
What are numbers?
We use numbers every day, but think about what they really are and why they help us so well to explain the Universe (for example, using Newton's laws)? Mathematical structures can be made up of numbers, sets, groups, and points, but are they real objects or simply describe relationships that are common to all structures? Plato claimed that numbers are real (though you can't see them), but the formalists insisted that numbers are just part of formal systems.
Each of us comes into this life to learn. Learn from events, encounters, even suffering. But we often refuse to see what exactly they want to convey to us, we get hung up on one lesson for a long time- and we lose years when we could spend several months on it.
If we asked ourselves questions that make us think about life more often, perhaps we would learn much faster.
Children's philosophy
As children's book writer Bernadette Russell says, children should ask their parents philosophical questions that will shape their worldview and help them grow up. And, of course, children's fairy tales and cartoons will help them formulate these questions. The mistake of many parents is that they do not decipher to their children the meaning of the cartoons they have watched and the fairy tales they have read. What questions do the fairy tales of Saltykov, Pushkin and other famous personalities make you think about? Saltykov in his tales condemns the government, comically shows the intelligentsia, so such tales, with a deeper reading, can be of interest even to adults.
Philosophical questions for children
Here are a few questions that make little fidgets think and that parents should definitely answer.
1. How to treat animals?
Any Living being needs care and love, and especially our little pets. Raising love for smaller friends will help children learn kindness, fearless manifestation of love, care.
2. How much are the best things in life worth?
All the best we get absolutely free - love for life and for people, laughter, communication with friends, sleep, hugs. They are not bought, not because they are free, but because they are priceless.
3. What's good in life?
All life is good, no matter what trouble it brings us! In every, even the darkest day, there is a place for the sun's rays - a green traffic light on the way home, ice cream bought for dessert, warm weather. Teach your children to feel life and, of course, to believe in magic.
4.Can one person change the world?
We will not change the whole world, but we can change ourselves - and then the world around us will change for us. Our little personal world will become exactly the way we want to see it, because a person receives what he radiates.
The most unusual questions
Below is a list of the most extraordinary questions that make you think, but at first baffle you. Probably, each of us will find our own answer to all of them.
1. Is it possible to lie to the interlocutor without saying anything?
It all depends on how the question was posed and what exactly it concerns. Usually silence cannot be called a lie, but there are times when it can be regarded as such.
2. What would you choose: wealth and a wheelchair, or health and poverty?
This question makes us think about what we are chasing so hard, ruining our health and pushing moral principles not worth the effort at all. After all, none of us will take money with us to the grave.
3. What advice would you give a newborn for the future?
Probably each of us would answer this question differently. But, you must admit, it is precisely the charming childish immediacy that adults so lack! And perhaps this is what you should wish for - always and under any circumstances to remain yourself.
4. If you could change your future, would you change it?
Changing the future leads to changes in the present. In the past, which has been preserved in your memory and heart, there were necessary lessons that you successfully completed. And if you renounce them, your future will no longer be securely girded with past experience.
5. Knowing that tomorrow will be the last day of your life, what actions would you decide to take?
How much time we spend doubting and fearing. Knowing that life is so short, we consciously sacrifice our desires, aspirations, dreams just because we have doubts. And then we regret it, because in practice, it would seem that a long life turns out to be incredibly short.
Eternal questions about life in books
How many books have been written on philosophical topics! What serious philosophical questions do these books make you think about? Not every person spiritually and intellectually grows up to such books, but if you take up one of them, you can be sure that you will take something valuable from it for yourself. Almost all such texts carry a message to the reader that makes you think about your life and your worldview.
List of books with deep meaning
"A Clockwork Orange" by Anthony Burgess is a novel that shows the cruelty of the world around without embellishment. The metamorphoses that take place with the hero, who at first himself showed unprecedented cruelty, until he experienced it on himself in prison, raise questions from readers that are worth thinking about - about how our society works, why there is so much cruelty in it. And the motto of the book says that life must be accepted as it is. Priceless advice, right?
"April Witchcraft" by Ray Bradbury - a short story about an unfortunate female love that every girl has experienced at some point. Do we need similar life experiences? Can we overcome suffering? Pain lives inside every person, like a poisonous flower, and only we decide what to do with this flower - water it or pick it and throw it away.
What question does the book "A Happy Death" by Albert Camus make you think about? Each of us once asked himself: why was I born into this world, will happiness await me? Albert Camus is looking for answers to these questions together with his hero. After all, the main meaning of life, perhaps, is not in achievements or pleasures, but in feeling this happiness.
Have you ever thought about how dear your family and friends really are? What important role does the family play in our life? Marquez, in his book One Hundred Years of Solitude, talks about people who are happy to have guests, but are indifferent to each other.
How long have you been bitten by your own conscience? Conscience is an individual choice for everyone, as the author of the novel "The French Lieutenant's Mistress" claims. This book has two endings.
"We are responsible for those we have tamed"
What questions did Exupery's The Little Prince make those who read this work think about? The work is easily divided into many quotes filled with childish wisdom. And although this story is perceived as a fairy tale, in fact, The Little Prince is recommended for adults to read. During the reading, you will find many questions on a philosophical topic, the answers to which are also in the work. What is friendship really? Do we see beauty around us? Do we know how to be happy or do we lose this quality as we grow up?
Conclusion
Life is complex, multifaceted, somewhat cruel. But she asks us questions that make us think. Love for her, sincere and unclouded by problems, makes us truly happy people. This should be the task of each of us - to understand that happiness does not depend on external factors, but on internal content.
A philosophical question is always a question about the grounds for judgments or actions. The grounds are ontological (about the foundations of existence), epistemological (about the foundations of knowledge, criteria of truth) and axiological (about value, normative foundations).
It is necessary to strongly disrespect the achievements of philosophy and science over many centuries, or maintain ignorant innocence in relation to them, in order to declare the complete unresolved problems of being, non-being, truth, the meaning of life, the mission of mankind, etc.
But one should not go to the other extreme, exaggerating the importance of philosophy and hoping that some philosophical discovery will suddenly transform the world. Philosophy develops, changes along with other areas of the spirit: sciences, art, literature, morality, social, political and legal ideas.
In the current situation of a global escalation of conflicts, wars and violence, a wide reverse transit in many countries from democracy to authoritarianism, as well as a global polarization between the richest, most advanced societies and poor societies, deprived of something, offended, slipping into aggression, to the fore axiological questions emerge.
The problems of normative foundations arise with special exactingness and acuteness when values, moral, legal, humanistic, religious principles conflict.
What kind of violence, restriction of rights and freedoms is acceptable to prevent violence (especially in the form of terror)?
If opening borders to unfortunate refugees threatens to harm local residents, is there a balance and how to find it?
Can revolutions, revolutionary violence, the overthrow of governments in general be justified? Or are there limits to the cruelty of repressive regimes, when the violent overthrow of power is already justified?
What are the criteria for the legitimacy of post-revolutionary regimes?
What principles should underlie assistance to backward countries if the past experience of such assistance (financial, food, medical, etc.) led to negative consequences: overpopulation, conservation of backwardness, crime, violence, wars?
You might think that such questions are not philosophical, but relate to politics, ideology, social sciences. That's the problem, that they are engaged in completely different people and institutions that "do not bother" with philosophy. The results are visible and often disastrous.
Philosophy, on the other hand, was locked up in the "ivory tower" (more precisely, in university departments and special journals isolated from the world). Or rather, the philosophers themselves locked themselves in there, always ready to speculate with a thoughtful air about the “high”: being and non-being, transcendences and semantic worlds, about “how to get the question” and about the mission of mankind.