Is there a right or wrong understanding of philosophical rationality? Why?

Of course, there will be, and it is very easy for reason to make our judgment of things wrong without any sensory experience. For example, when human beings do not understand the nature of the earth and the universe

Of course, there are different understandings of different worldviews, and it is correct to hold the understanding of a materialist worldview. None of the others.

Truth is man's correct reflection of objective things and their laws.

Truth is the same understanding of the same objective world in a certain time and space in different subjective worlds across time and space, which appears repeatedly and inevitably when the objective conditions are satisfied. The process of practice is the process of connecting the subjective world with the objective world of a certain time and space.

Truth, that is, eternal and unchanging, only true truth. Truth can also be divided into absolute truth and relative truth, that is, absolute truth is a generalized truth that is not subject to any limitations; Relative truth is established under certain conditions, and it is good and unreasonable to have limitations. Truth is the most consistent and eternal and correct truth of reality, that is, objective things and their laws.

Practice is the only criterion for testing truth.

Introduction:

The so-called "absoluteness of truth" originally came from Hegel.

Presented by the "Absolute Spirit."

Concept, of course, is not used to say that the spirit has such frivolous propositions as relative and absolute, and the whole world is the product of the dialectical development of the absolute spirit itself. The beauty of this is not something that some people can understand. "Absolute Friendship Mountain Spirit" was later encha file Gus.

took it and became Ma Zhe.

The process of "absolute truth" happens to be reversed from Hegel, and becomes the development from the material to the spiritual.

No, because truth is objective, and "correct understanding" refers to people's subjective understanding, even if the action is correct. The main file of the virtual view of the understanding does not directly penetrate the objective essence, but only describes and understands it in objective phenomena. That is to say, the correctness of active cognition is at most infinitely close to the objective truth, not "is".

How to explain it correctly, subjective cognition and objective cognition are consistent with the object of cognition, which is the same, that is, thinking and existence are identical.

The correct understanding is the truth.

Existentialism. The opposite of rationality.

Instead of sensibility, the opposite of rationality is irrationality, so existential rationality is the rationality we often talk about?

Again, the word irrational. What is irrationality? Can it be said that it is our ordinary irrational beliefs and some behaviors that are not accepted by society? Can you give us more examples from different levels?

Rationality and sensibility are both acquired artificial intentions, you do a thing, some people can say that you do this is emotional, some people can also say that you do it rationally, the angle of standing is different, and the relative view will definitely be different If you really want to divide, I think sensibility is to be able to follow the most direct idea in your heart, no matter how obstructed by other external factors, no matter how unrealistic the idea is, you want to do it, which is often a very ridiculous idea in the hearts of most people Rational words, is to insist on starting from reality, Go to Balabala from the experience of practice.

As for why you should be rational, it probably depends on the feasibility of your idea, after all, an unrealizable dream (emphasizing that it is completely unachievable due to various subjective and objective factors), is not feasible, and can only be a dream forever.

Rationality refers to the ability of people in a normal state of mind to calmly face the current situation with confidence and courage in order to obtain the expected results, and quickly and comprehensively understand the reality, analyze a variety of feasible solutions, and then judge the best plan and effectively implement it. Rationality is based on existing theories and derives certain results through rational logical deduction. Otherwise, it is anti-rational.

The essence of reason is negation and doubt. irrational, inspired; It also refers to various irrational currents of thought that oppose rational philosophy, such as sentimentalism, volitionism, philosophy of life, the unconscious, intuitionism, and mysticism.

Nihilism, relativism.

Wait. A portrayal of "rationality" is also a portrayal of "irrationality", and the identification of "irrationality" is also a demarcation of "rationality". As far as my very limited understanding is concerned, one of the more common descriptions in the history of philosophy is that "man is a rational animal, and human reason can distinguish him from other animals."

In this sense, rationality is first transformed into a predicate of man: man is rational. The basis for this statement is that there are aspects of human life as a whole that are different from those of animals.

This also makes our understanding and knowledge of reason essentially parallel to the understanding of certain aspects of human life as a whole. The more we understand a particular dimension of life, the deeper our understanding of rationality will be. Furthermore, philosophical theories that use reason as a central word will always appeal to a comprehensive understanding of certain dimensions of human life, and by their very nature they will also have a favorable opinion of other philosophical theories that are making similar attempts.

When philosophers talk about rationality and irrationality, they mean things in a person's thoughts, and irrational words mean that he is not able to happen accurately or according to his own will.

Philosophical rationality refers to the rigorous scientificity of thinking, and philosophical irrationality refers to an irrational behavior after rationality has been distorted. In fact, such an understanding is unscientific, and we think that only knowing the essential content is rational, and the non-essential content is irrational.

When philosophers talk about rationality and irrationality, they mean that we should think about irrationality with the thinking of the sciences, that is, with the thinking of the liberal arts.

Philosophers speak of rationality and irrationality, referring to the right things to do within the normal mind and to do things in one's own abnormal mind.

What philosophers call rationality and irrationality is what they mean when it comes to truth and unreality.

What philosophers call rationality and irrationality are generally their basic principles.

What do philosophers mean by rationality and irrationality? This should be a kind of thinking ability of oneself.

Conformity: Truth is a proposition that conforms to objective facts, whether any proposition is truth or not has nothing to do with its relationship to other propositions, conformity theory is usually accused of the existence of purely objective facts that are not external to consciousness at all and can be used as a criterion of truth, and the so-called facts are the conformity of strong discourse;

Coherence theory: Truth is a system of propositions that can be justified without self-contradiction, and whether any proposition is true or not is determined by its relationship to other propositions. The system of propositions that meet this definition is not the only one, so the coherence theory is often accused of anonism and relativism of true macro-rationality;

Redundancy theory: The semantics of paragraph A true and assertion A, and assertion of a falsehood and assertion of a are exactly the same, so true or false is redundant.

In the history of Western philosophy, each stage has a different situation. As for modern philosophy, I can quote a short story from Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" to explain to you.

A famous scientist (said to be Bertrand Russell) once gave a lecture on astronomy.

He described how the Earth moves around the Sun and how the Sun orbits the huge stars we call galaxies.

The center of the group turns. At the end of the speech, a short old woman sitting in the back of the room stood up and said, "You said that.

This is all nonsense. The world is actually a flat plate on the back of a large tortoise. "This scientist is very.

With a cultured smile, he replied, "So what is this turtle standing on?" "You are very clever, young man, very clever indeed," said the old woman, "but this is a herd of tortoises carrying on a saddle all the time!" ”

Most people think it's ridiculous to think of our universe as an infinite tortoise tower, but why are we.

Where did it come from and where will it go? Did the universe have a beginning? If anything, what happened before this beginning? Time.

What is the essence of the room? Will it have an end? Some of the latest breakthroughs in physics have made a wonderful new part.

One day these answers will be as obvious as we think the Earth is moving around the sun – and certainly like a tortoise tower.

It's ridiculous. Either way, only time will tell.

Is it absolute or relative?

Different schools of thought in philosophy have different definitions of truth, and in the present world, my personal preference for truth is relative.

If it is absolute eternity, why is it repeatedly broken by practice?

If there is a relative change, then is it still the truth?

I think here you need to be clear about what truth is. Is it universally applicable or a corner of peace for thousands of years?

Is it subjective or objective?

The subjective should have subjective truth, and the objective should also have objective truth. If you have to choose one or the other, it should not be the truth.

If the so-called truth cannot be questioned, then it also becomes a religious belief.

Truth and faith are twin brothers, but one is true and the other is not.

If the so-called truth can be questioned, then it cannot be believed and followed.

If the world knows and determines that God does not exist or that God is dead, then are beliefs and laws impossible to spread and follow?

If truth cannot be unified, then what is the point of pursuing truth?

The meaning lies in the fact that we all want to seek ultimate knowledge, we all want to change the fate of truth that can only be relative, we all want to discover the constancy of the universe, and we all want to be as Taoists talk about heaven and earth.

If truth must be unified, then what is the point of scientific inquiry?

Rather, it was the hardest question I found, because I never thought about the point of scientific inquiry. The following aspects should be considered:

1. Is the meaning of scientific inquiry and the meaning of ideological inquiry both pointing to Hengyi (I personally insist on using "Tao" instead, of course, you can refute me for not being a philosopher of science.) ）；

2. Whether scientific inquiry is a lateral test produced by human beings when they cannot be constant about whether the truth is true or not, for example, as Mr. Deng said, "practice is the only criterion for testing truth";

3. Whether the ultimate of scientific inquiry can create the truth, and whether this creation is the ultimate meaning of scientific inquiry.

Truth is only what human beings subjectively think is true, but it is not necessarily true. Before Copernicus and Galileo, it was true that God created man and the earth is the center of the universe, but later it became a fallacy. Truth is not necessarily truth, and we should dare to question everything

Truth is people's correct understanding of things.

Truth is both absolute and relative, and it is the dialectical unity of the two aspects. Absoluteness refers to its objectivity, correctness; Relativity refers to its development, which is constantly enriched, expanded and deepened with the development of people's practice. If you only see absolutes, you will be rigid in your thinking; If we only see relativity, we will fall into relativist sophistry, which will essentially deny the existence of truth.

The form of truth is cognition, so it is subjective; The content of truth is the object of knowledge, so it is objective. The unity of content and form, the unity of subjectivity and objectivity.

Truth can be questioned, and this is the only way for truth to develop, and it is the process of human beings constantly searching for truth.

I've divided your question into 8 questions!

In my mind, or rather what I firmly believe, is that in this world, what remains constant is "change"! Here's my opinion:

1. I believe that truth is relative, that is, temporary, and there is no eternal truth!

2 Needless to say.

3. Truth is also subject to change! Things change, and so does truth; We must seek truth from facts, and we cannot insist on taking the truth of that time as the truth of this time, because we will make mistakes! It's like the policies of the country before and after the reform are different!

4. Truth exists objectively and does not change by the change of human consciousness!

5 and 6, China allows religious beliefs to exist; Challenging the truth is the only way to follow the truth, isn't it?

7. Truth is changeable and non-eternal, and the pursuit or scientific search is to find the truth that is in line with the moment!

8 Needless to say!

Personally, I believe that truth, in the expression of the word "truth", we have already demanded that "truth" must be absolute. It is broken because what you once thought was not the truth.

Truth is subjective and objective.

The significance of a process of pursuing truth is that truth (absolute) is made up of many relative "truths" (or cannot be said truths, but only titles), and we must move towards absolute truth through the step of relative truth. Therefore, the point of scientific inquiry is to discover relative truths.

So, in general, we have been on the road to truth (absolutely). It is a belief because we are convinced of its existence.

Theory-only. Theory only recognizes the reliability of rational cognition and denies the fundamental role of perceptual cognition.

There are two types of theories: idealistic theories and materialist theories.

The former, such as Plato's theory of materialism, fundamentally denies that the objective material world is the object of cognition, and believes that knowledge is equal to memory, and that knowledge is nothing more than the idea that has already existed in the soul.

The latter, like Spinoza's theory of materialism, acknowledges that laws are objective, but believes that only reason can grasp them, and that sensory experience is unreliable.