What is the connection between the public says that the public is reasonable and practice is the

Everyone has a reason in their heart, and reason itself is a subjective word. The angle of the station is different, and the reason obtained is also different. Practice is the only criterion for testing truth, and this statement is universal from any angle we are now exposed to.

However, when you stand high enough and look far enough, you may also find counterexamples. The so-called idealism and materialism do not have a clear boundary, as long as you understand it in your heart, you can discover it from multiple angles.

The former is used in life, especially in Chinese society, where there is no absolute truth (and I don't mean the field of science), what matters is harmony.

The latter is a term in the academic field, which means that science is very rigorous, one is one, two is two, it is right and wrong, and it is not right and wrong, and books and authoritative words cannot be fully trusted, because the process of people's understanding of the world is gradual, from shallow to deep, so some truths have stages.

First of all, it is necessary to affirm that practice is the only criterion for testing truth.

It's a phrase that only an honest person can say. Don't talk about anything, cross the river by feeling the stones. Ignore nothing and seek development wholeheartedly.

Needless to say, development is the last word. Immerse yourself in hard work, build a Greater China, make a country strong and prosperous, and make the nation happy. This is the superiority of socialism and the consistency of the excellent culture of the Chinese nation.

Is practice the only criterion for testing truth? You can't do it with your head shut

Living in the present + looking forward to the future = > indispensable Many people think: I (life) take this step well and then the next step is good Then'There will never be a problem, as everyone knows'Walking and walking'I don't know if the direction is crooked (especially since people have selfishness and desires).

The philosophical truth of the public saying that the public is reasonable is that there are differences in cognition, and the objectivity of truth cannot be denied.

Epistemology tells us that due to the influence of factors such as knowledge level, values, and interest positions, people may have different understandings of the same thing, which is the difference in understanding. But there is only one truth in relation to the same definite concrete object, which is the objectivity of truth.

The dialectical relationship between practice and cognition.

1. Practice is the basis of cognition (practice determines consciousness): practice is the only source of cognition, practice is the driving force for the development of cognition, practice is the only criterion for testing the truth of cognition, and practice is the purpose and destination of cognition.

2. Cognition has a counterproductive effect on practice. Truth (correct understanding) has a promoting effect on practice.

On the issue of the criterion of truth, it is () a. who advocates that "the public says that the public is justified, and the mother-in-law says that the mother-in-law is reasonable".A pragmatic point of view.

b.The old materialist view of renting early.

c.Subjective idealistic point of view.

d.The relativist view of the split.

Positive Mask Closure Answer: ACD

Regarding the statement that "the public says that the public is reasonable, and the mother-in-law says that the mother-in-law is envious and reasonable", the wrong one is () aThere is no such thing as a completely objective criterion in value evaluation.

b.The evaluation of value traces has the characteristics of subjectivity.

c.The value evaluation is completely different from person to person, and different positions have different evaluations, and there is no difference between right and wrong.

d.Evaluation is based on the value relationship between subject and object.

Correct brother Min Liang answer: ac

The essence of this statement is to assert that truth is relative, reflecting people's correct understanding of certain things within a certain range, so this sentence obviously reflects the relativity of truth.

Any understanding of truth is a correct reflection of certain fields, things, and processes in the entire objective world within a certain range; Any understanding of truth is only an approximate and correct reflection of specific concrete things to a certain extent and at a certain level.

[Analysis] "The public says that the public is reasonable, and the mother-in-law says that the mother-in-law is reasonable" refers to the fact that there are as many truths as there are views on the same objective thing, regardless of whether it is consistent with reality, and there are different understandings of the same object of understanding, or even contradictory understandings.

Postgraduate examination questions, others should not say the answers without moving, F, U, C, K to mislead others.

The public says that the public is reasonable, and the mother-in-law says that the mother-in-law is reasonable, and the analogy is that A says that A is right, and B says that B's is right. The benevolent sees it and says it is benevolent, and the wise sees it and says it is wise. It refers to the treatment of the same thing, and their opinions vary from person to person.

The language version of "Yi Ji Ci I": "The benevolent see the benevolent, and the knower sees the knowing." Gao Heng Note:

Knowing and reading is wisdom, the way of yin and yang, complex and less changing. When people are faced with specific phenomena, they often have different understandings, and the benevolent see it as benevolent, and the wise see it as wisdom. "Seeing the wisdom of the people and saying that the public is justified, and the mother-in-law saying that the mother-in-law is reasonable, all reflect the initiative of consciousness.

The difference is that the former focuses on emphasizing the different reflections formed due to the different composition of knowledge, but there is one thing that "benevolence" and "wisdom" are correct; The latter mainly emphasizes the different reflections formed due to different positions, but one thing is certain, the in-laws cannot be reasonable, that is to say, one of the two must be wrong, people's reactions to objective things, will be affected by subjective and objective factors and there will be a difference between "realistic" and "distortion". From the perspective of subjective factors, the influencing factors include stance (class position, interest position), world view, values, outlook on life and thinking methods, knowledge composition, body, psychology, etc.

As the legend goes, due to the different composition of knowledge, different people may observe the same thing from different angles, sides, and levels, and different reflections will be formed, and these different reflections may faithfully reflect a certain angle, side, and level of objective things. This is what we usually call "the benevolent see the benevolent, and the wise see the wise". The situation is also complicated by the different reflections that arise from different positions of the people.

The in-laws may be both justified (both correct, or partially correct), or both may be unreasonable (both wrong, or have one end of the spectrum, or strong arguments), or one party may be right and the other party wrong). Our (understanding) task is to sort out our thinking and unify everyone's understanding of the same thing from the same angle, the same aspect, and the same level to a truthful reflection.

The objectivity of truth is not subject to human will. But there is a choice in which perspective to look at the truth, but it is often incomplete. If we want to look at the truth holistically, we need to look at it from multiple angles.

Truth is conditioned by time and space, and if it is measured in seconds, it is the truth one second ago, and it may be a fallacy one second later. But this is not the truth, the real truth is not limited by time and space, even if it is thousands of years from now, it is still the truth.

Yes, I also feel that it is objective and subjective.

Value evaluation considers the usefulness of a thing to a person, and has nothing to do with the thing itself, and varies from person to person. There is a human subjective law in it, so it is impossible to be completely objective.