Why is it philosophically said that the person who finishes last in a running race is the biggest wi

It was a competition, everyone was playing to their best, the first place was given an honorary flower, and the last place he did not get the material honor given to him by the real world, but he also made a vow to get the first place mentally and worked hard. For such a noble competition, we, as a spectator, should give all the applause to every athlete who struggles for the game. The athlete who finished last failed in the competition, but he unexpectedly received the most incomparable recognition and praise for an athlete with a noble professional demeanor.

He saw the gap and the value of a loser, not decadent, but to rise up, with a faster, higher, stronger lofty goal, and bravely struggle.

For a winner, it is not about how many trophies and honors you get, but a spirit of unremitting struggle and perseverance in the pursuit of goals. This is a winner, what he gains is not to fall in the face of setbacks, not to be discouraged in the face of failure, he exercises a strong mental ability, and the harvest is fulfillment and happiness.

Because he won the defeat!

Because he has a good mentality, and this good attitude will help him throughout his life.

Because he saw everyone's backs, everyone's weaknesses, which helped him to surpass in the future.

Because he's looking for the process of the game, not the result. Aimlessly, he does not compete with other people, but with his inner self. It is a manifestation of self-transcendence.

Because he lost, there was a lot of psychological pressure, but he insisted on finishing the run and didn't give up, so he experienced the most in the process, but these happened to be the necessary factors for success, so it may be a bit one-sided to say that he was the biggest winner.

I don't understand it right.

Philosophy is a science of reflection and observation, and whether it is reflection or observation, it requires all kinds of realistic social phenomena and social events, without which there would be no philosophy.

It is also in this sense that philosophically speaking, the person who finishes last in the running race is the biggest winner.

Because you have the most materials.

It won't be the philosophers. Generally speaking, it is to engage in successful learning and inspiration. Reverse thinking, dialectical thinking. Hardly there's any point.

Isn't it said that failure is the mother of success? It's pretty much the same thing. On the one hand, you run last place, and you only improve in the later races, not regression.

Your life will be optimistic because you can always enjoy progressing. On the other hand, if you win the first place in the competition, you will only have a short-term honor, you will always worry that others will surpass you, you will be carried away by the victory, arrogant and proud, and you will also become a slave of honor.

Of course, everyone's personality is different, and their viewpoint and stance on things are different. If this is a philosophical question, it is at best a dialectic, and this sentence is really not enough to learn from. From a personal point of view, we don't need to care too much about anything, what is yours is yours, not what you chase after and ask for trouble.

Personal experience. Exchange references with each other.

Contradictions are to fight each other, and the result of the struggle is that one side will win, and the other side will completely lose. In this way, the internal contradiction will be resolved, and then a new contradiction will arise, and the struggle will continue.

A contradiction is an inconsistency between two or more statements, thoughts, or actions, and there is no distinction between good and evil. The etymology of the Chinese language comes from the story described in "Han Feizi" and "Difficult One". In logic, contradiction is defined more specifically as asserting both a statement and its negation.

In colloquial language and dialectics, contradiction has a completely different meaning than in formal logic.

The spear and the shield are metaphorically contradictory to each other and full of contradictions. Dialectically refers to the interdependent and mutually exclusive relationship between objective things and the various opposites within the human mind. The universality and particularity of contradictions, the sameness and the struggle.

In formal logic, it refers to the relationship between two concepts that are mutually exclusive or two judgments that cannot be true at the same time or false at the same time.

Contradiction is the opposite

Opposite. Not only do individuals have their own contradictions, but also different groups have contradictions.

Contradictions are to fight with each other, and the result of the struggle is victory on one side and complete defeat on the other. In this way, the contradiction is resolved, and then a new contradiction arises, and the struggle continues.

Tell an example of an individual contradiction. For example, if a college student feels that his status is not high enough, he will have to take the postgraduate entrance examination. But the contradiction comes, he must go to earn money to raise the next generation.

On the one hand, he wants to take the postgraduate examination, but he does not want to take the in-service examination, and only wants to take the academic national unified recruitment; On the other hand, he needs to find a job to earn money. Contradictions struggle with each other, and he is very entangled. In the end, one side of the contradiction must prevail over the other.

He will either give up his job to go to graduate school, or he will give up graduate school to make money. You have to make a choice, otherwise you'll be very entangled and you won't be able to do anything.

Tell an example of group contradiction. For example, China and Japan. The Chinese are afraid that Japan will become stronger, and then it will invade China.

Therefore, Japan must be suppressed in all respects. And Japan has a desire to become stronger. All for the interests of the country (i.e., private interests.

It is believed that all people, all groups, are selfish, and they only think about their own interests and exclude others. So there is a constant struggle. In the end, on the one hand, the contradictions cannot be reconciled.

If it can be reconciled, it will be temporary. Because people and groups are selfish, they must win completely on the one hand, otherwise they will not give their opponents any chance. Reality is cruel and unforgiving.

Adopt me, dear.

Let's take an example.

Just like the decency and the villain in the call, this is a pair of contradictions, the two sides must fight as contradictions, and if they don't fight, they can't fight, which is also the struggle, so how can they not fight, one is that the decency beat the villain to death, which is called overcoming; A decent villain dies together, this is the same end; There is also a kind of negotiation between the decent villain and the formation of a new organization, so that the decent villain becomes a thing, the contradiction disappears, and this is fusion. Reconciliation is that both the decent and the villain are still there, but they said that we won't fight, it's okay, this is not good, as a contradiction they must fight, unless they are integrated, that is, they become an organization, so that the contradiction can be eliminated.

The conciliation theory denies the struggle between the opposing sides, and thus denies the development of things, because the two sides of the contradiction can only achieve the fusion of opposites through struggle.

The forms of conflict resolution are as follows:

One side of the contradiction overcomes the other.

Both sides of the conflict are at the end of the conflict.

The two sides of the contradiction form a new form of coordinated movement.

The two sides of the contradiction merge into a new thing.

The irreconcilability of contradictions means that two contradictions cannot be reconciled without change, but can only develop together to form a new form of coordinated movement.

The contradiction is irreconcilable, and the affirmative system is affirmative.

It is not a philosophical contradiction, but a concrete contradiction, especially the contradiction between the enemy and ourselves, the contradiction between the class and so on.

The contradiction in philosophy is the generalization and summary of all specific contradictions. Everything in the world contains two aspects, which are both opposites and unified. Struggle and identity are the two basic attributes of contradiction.

Identity refers to the interdependence, mutual penetration and penetration of the two sides of the contradiction, and under certain conditions, the transformation of the other party, so the two sides of the contradiction are coexisting and inseparable.

The two sides of the contradiction can be integrated and mutually beneficial.

DU (This is not reconciliation, it is through the struggle of the DAO way to absorb each other's favorable factors within the development of themselves.

Judging from the existing theories, it seems that the truth is contrary to the facts. And it's not just against philosophical theories. Philosophies don't like to look at things. As for whether or not physiognomy can become a science in the future, we humans still don't know clearly.

It is advisable not to detach from reality, but to believe in science. More than 60 years ago, the country withered and the people were degraded, that is, the lack of knowledge and scientific knowledge, which led to the weakness of the country and the poverty of the people.

Don't believe it, you can only use it as a reference, and you can understand your own life.

The definition of matter in Marxist philosophy refers to things that exist objectively and are not subject to human will, including not only visible matter, but also small things that you can't feel, such as water vapor

This view is wrong.

Philosophical matter refers to the existence that is opposed to consciousness and is not transferred by human will. Any being, as long as it meets this definition, is a substance. And this sentence is talking about the real thing, which is not the same as the philosophical material, but can only be said to be a part of the material.

The existence of consciousness is manifested through the action of matter, so the physical object here should not involve consciousness.

Wrong, there are some substances that you can't see or touch, but they exist.

Like light, dark matter ......

Human wisdom is very limited, and the frequency of what the eye can see is not very often (please do not believe what you see), it is like sitting in a well and watching the sky

Our science is empirical science = >seeing is believing, like a blind man touching an elephant'(Half a bottle of vinegar is only known as one of them.)'I don't know the second, it's better not to know at all) can send or not'(and mutant viruses) will bring humanity to destruction

Matter and spirit are one and the same Science has proven: when people produce emotions'It is true that there is a substance that is secreted when people are thinking'It does form like a brainwave'Radio waves and things like that, as long as they exist, it's science, and religion is the highest science, for example, the gods and Buddhas (including God) have tremendous energy that can change the number of atoms

Wrong!!! Voices are invisible and intangible!

The main contradiction is to find in many things, and the main aspect is to look at two things.

General, the key point, the key, the central work, the most important thing is the main contradiction.

Once the main contradictions are identified, the main aspects can be determined.

The main contradiction refers to the relationship between multiple contradictions, and the main aspect of the contradiction refers to the relationship between two aspects of the same contradiction.

In the process of the development of complex things, there are many contradictions, among which there must be one contradiction, which determines or influences the existence and development of other contradictions, and is in a dominant position, and it is the main contradiction that plays a decisive role in the development of things. The other subordinate ones, which do not play a decisive role in the development of things, are secondary contradictions.

The forces on both sides of each contradiction are unbalanced. Among them, the aspect that is in a dominant position and plays a leading role is called the main aspect of the contradiction. And the dominant aspect is called the secondary aspect of the contradiction.

To grasp the main contradiction is to grasp the key points, the center, the key points, and the tasks.

Grasp the main aspects of contradictions, grasp the nature, direction, form, mainstream, and essence.

This is true, because movement is absolute, and stillness is relative.

Let's start with movement in stillness: no matter how still you are, they are always moving. You stand still, but you don't move relative to a certain reference, and in fact the earth is moving, how can you not move; You say that if the earth is not moving, then the whole solar system is also moving; Microscopically speaking, all molecules are in motion all the time, so motion is absolute and static is relative.

Let's talk about stillness in motion: since there is movement in stillness, there is no doubt that it means stillness in motion. If there is no stillness, then there will be no stillness in the previous movement.

1.Doubting oneself is a subconscious expectation of further self-affirmation ...

For example, if you see that you have done a wrong problem in the past, you will get a sense of accomplishment (you can see your mistakes).

2.'Not being able to judge what you want, knowing how to do it but not knowing what it is for' is a lack of sense of value.

The way to overcome it is very simple, you have to explore your talents more, and then after your self-worth has accumulated to a certain level, there will be a voice in your heart that tells you what to do.

Maxwell, who was very talented, can be seen from his system of equations, but, for a long time he did not engage in his own business in order to organize Cavendish's manuscripts, and perhaps with his talent, he probably surpassed Einstein.

Wrong, it is always us young people, no matter how great they are, we have to learn their set, and they have learned more than them, and they all say that the future is terrifying, and that's the reason.

Newton, he contributed to us calculus, Newton's three laws. It can be said that his work ushered in an era, and when you get to university, you will find that for science and engineering students, if you don't learn calculus well, college is basically in vain.

It's one of my names, newtoneinstein, and no one else can do it. If you only compare the achievements in physics, I think it is Einstein, and with the achievements in mathematics, Newton should be better.

Newton is described in almost all books as the greatest physicist before Einstein.

And Einstein is evaluated as the greatest physicist in human history.