Philosophical Question Whose philosophy is correct

The ego can only be self-proved, i think, therefore i am

Idealism is also logically correct.

It is generally said that without the material world, there would be no me.

Yes, it can be established. But it doesn't hold up logically.

The material world exists, and the self may not exist.

The existence of the material world is not premised on the self, there is no necessary logical connection between the world and the self, it is not that the world exists, the self exists, even if the material world exists, the self does not necessarily exist, so it is proved: the self can only be proved by the self, I can only be proved by my existence, and the existence of the world can only be proved by the existence of the self.

PS: The philosophical spirit is.

Smell a rat. Criticism.

Create. Freely.

To doubt is to have a spirit of skepticism, including one's own thoughts.

Then look at the problem critically and develop the ability to think independently.

It's not enough to just criticize.

It is also necessary to create its own philosophy and establish spiritual pillars.

The spirit of all this process.

It's all contained in freedom.

There is no such thing as absolute right in philosophy!

With the passage of time, philosophy is also becoming more and more complete, and it is impossible to recognize the true objective and true world by relying on only one generation. Idealism or materialism is only a popular philosophy in our time, and they will experience more verification and develop a newer and more complete philosophical system.

It is difficult to complete the vision of the truth, idealism and materialism may only be two different angles to look at our world, and now there is no answer to "whose philosophy is correct", it should be that the current philosophy is still in development, each with its own incompleteness. It is only by synthesizing or completely denying it that the truth can be reached.

There will be no correct answer to this question, and it can only be said by one family. But what I can tell you for sure is this: there are two things in this world that are specifically designed to deceive the truth, and both of them are surnamed horses, one is called Mosaic and the other is called Marx.

There is never a right or wrong in philosophy.

If someone thinks that the doctrine of the idealists is wrong, then the same idealists can think that the doctrines of the materialists are wrong. Who can prove the right and wrong of the two without idealism or materialism?

Sometimes the so-called error lies in human ignorance.

You can read books by idealists attacking materialism so that you can find your own answers.

In a one-sided domestic environment, thinking about this issue is simply something beyond thinking.

If you want to find the loopholes and shortcomings of the other party's theory, you must first understand the other party's theory.

There is no right answer to this question, true philosophy can guide people to know and what to do in the world, according to people's needs to understand and transform the world, different people can choose different ideas.

This involves whether philosophy can be explained in words; I think you're a little misunderstood, though, that materialism and idealism are inseparable, just like you can never just eat without thinking about why you're eating.

These are the three most difficult questions in philosophy.

I think: Who am I? I am a material form of being. But there is consciousness in my material form.

I am both "me" and "others", and everyone's existence is only a temporary phenomenon, coming from "nothing". Life is short, death is eternal.

I'm from **? I'm from where I'm supposed to be. Once by chance, then existed for me.

I'm going to **? Go where you need to go. A place where everyone is going.

What is Philosophy?

Even if you go through all the texts and ask all the people you think have great wisdom, probably no one will give you a satisfactory answer. Because there is no such thing as a standard answer, what is philosophical. And these three questions you said.

But it is also a problem faced by all great people and all mankind, ancient and modern, Chinese and foreign, and arguably all mankind. It is also the deepest anxiety and yearning in everyone's heart. Who am I?

Where do I come from? Where am I going? It means that:

Who am I now? Did I exist before now? If I existed, who was I in the past?

Who will it be? In fact, it is a kind of understanding, thinking and questioning of "me" and "existence".

Buddhists believe that cause and effect are connected to the third world. So he might say, "If you want to know the cause of your past life, you will receive it in this life." If you want to know the fruits of the next life, what you do in this life is. This is the Buddhist's answer to this question.

Confucianism may say: Unknown life, how can you know death? That is, they think that the best way to know the past and the present is to do well in the present. From the present moment, realize who you are and who you are.

Taoism, on the other hand, may be more ethereal and free-spirited. Because they believe that the best way to live is to go with the flow and be one with nature. So you and nature should be one. It's also a part of nature. We should conform to the laws of nature, return to nature, and become one with nature.

Of course, there are still many questions about this issue in the West. For example, Descartes' "I think, therefore I am".

But in general, the only ones that really explore philosophy and really solve all your questions about life are probably Chinese culture (Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism) and Buddhism. This one should be the most thorough.

If you have philosophical, cultural, marketing, management hobbies. You can add ** exchange!

You are the soul, but now you are the human. When you come to this world for your cultivation, when you reach a certain stage of cultivation, you will be complete, and that is when you leave this world. So enter into everything possible to do more good deeds and good deeds in order to lift up your soul.

You are you, you come from your mother, you want to go, you go.

I am part of nature, I come from nature, and I return to nature after death.

Three problems with materialism.

How to better understand the universe, the world, and solve problems about the universe.

2。Learn how human society can better solve human problems.

3。Learn how to live a better life for yourself and solve problems in life.

Three questions of idealism.

1Who am I?

2 Where do I come from?

I want to go.

You are a mass of consciousness, coming out of nothingness and going out of nothingness.

Big brother security, I'm lost

You are one world, you are born of your heart, and you should be reincarnated.

I'm me, and when you see this, you can realize that the only thing you know for sure is that I'm real, except that you don't know anything.

Do you think your people should give you a bibliography or just scratch it?

In the face of death, think about your own identity and responsibility.

Because as the title says, adding the same thing can be better or worse, every thing is the same structure, just like wine, what you give it will affect its structure, and what we have to do is to optimize its structure and make it better than the original.

Actually, I think all four of these answers are correct. I chose A because when you choose one thing to match with another, you have to start from reality, and you can't "follow my thoughts". Choosing B is also right, because if a living object changes, you must control it and develop according to the effect you want to achieve.

I chose C because of ......Well, this one seems wrong.

All of the above are possible, but the most correct, and there is no reason to refute it, is D.

The meaning of the topic can be seen that the change of one thing and another thing will produce qualitative change, that is, optimizing the structure will produce qualitative change.

Choice C Two-point theory means that when looking at the development of complex things, we should see both the main contradiction and the secondary contradiction; When looking at the same thing, it is necessary to see both the primary aspects of the contradiction and the secondary aspects of the contradiction;

The key theory refers to the need to focus on grasping the main contradiction and grasping the key point of the problem when looking at the development of complex things. When looking at the same thing, we should focus on the main aspects of the contradiction and grasp the nature and mainstream of the thing;

The issue of party style building is a complex issue in the topic, and the emphasis on grasping the key points means grasping the main contradictions and embodying the key theories; In the question, it is also necessary to pay attention to solving the problems existing in the style of study, work style, and insight, and so on, and that the solution of the minor contradictions cannot be neglected while grasping the main contradictions. Therefore, C. is chosen

Pick A? Science students have not learned the late balance, however, thought is the essence, work style and so on is a phenomenon, right q I 40 75, 09 30 0, I'm bored, I don't understand other rentals, I'll teach you, how.

c. The unity of the two-point theory and the emphasis theory.

Theory of Key Points -- To do a good job in building the party's work style, we must grasp the key points. At present and for some time to come, we must put our ideological style in the first place.

At the same time, the stupid wisdom brigade should also pay attention to solving problems in the style of study, work style, leadership style, and life style of cadres.

The answer is: no, yes, yes. I've done my homework and it's got a perfect grade. If you have any questions, you can ask them.

The correct answer is: No, yes, yes.

This topic has been done, although not all of it is correct. The answer is yes: 1 No 2 Yes 3 Yes.

Any discipline has a process of continuous cognition, continuous discovery, and continuous development. Philosophy continues to improve itself with the progress of science and technology, and if one aspect is correct, its systematic expansion may not necessarily be applicable. For example, earlier mankind thought that the earth was a square floating object on the sea, and later discovered that it was a sphere, and then discovered the solar system, which thought that the earth was the center of the solar system, and Copernicus discovered the solar system centered on the sun, and until modern times, he discovered that the solar system belongs to only a small part of the Milky Way, and then discovered that the Milky Way only orbits around the constellation Virgo.

In this way, with the discovery and development of science, the philosophical concepts are constantly updated, but some of the ideas originally believed are not necessarily wrong, and they are applicable within a certain range, but they are not applicable beyond this scope. Newton's special theory of relativity only applies to the solar system, which is correct in this small range, but it is not applicable to the universe, and general relativity can solve these problems, but the system is different, and it cannot be said to be wrong, depending on which system range you use, the same is true of philosophy.

Philosophy is one of the social ideologies and is the doctrine of the worldview. Everyone's perception is different, so there is no right or wrong.

"Philosophy" only defines the object or category of study, and is not necessarily related to right and wrong.

Of course not. It depends on what you believe. If you believe, you are right, and if you don't, you are wrong.

Philosophy is a way to communicate and express knowledge! From the perspective of the onlooker, we should determine and judge whether it is right or wrong "according to the principle of the minority obeying the majority".