How did the standard for judging things come about?

Everyone's standard for judging things is different, although generally many of the three views are the same, but due to many factors, everyone's standard for judging things is still very different. It comes from your life, your family, or more, and these are the prerequisites for forming your own criteria for judging things. A person's experience is different from anyone else's, and the way they deal with it is different, and the standard for judging things may be different.

The criteria for judging things first come from your family of origin. Your family of origin is where you have lived for more than ten years, because after you go to college, you will be independent and change. Parents are the most important factor influencing your judgment, and everyone imitates the behavior of adults when they are young.

At this stage of pedagogy, the ability to imitate is very strong, and it will naturally and unnaturally do things like parents. For example, if your parents like to read, you will also open the book and read the villain book by yourself, and your parents are very kind to give strangers a sum of money to help them, and naturally you will think that this is the right thing. Whether parents are anxious or calm in dealing with things, whether they consider the feelings of others or only for themselves, these will be clearly seen in the eyes of children.

In fact, children do not have their own Dragon Boat Festival guidelines, and parents are the best teachers. The habitual thinking of the family of origin will also be your standard for handling things, and the influence of family members on you is really great.

The standard by which things are judged comes from your own acquired experience. After entering a relatively isolated environment, you will slowly adjust to this life. In the process, there will be a lot of things that you don't want to meet your previous judgment criteria.

Some contradictions will also appear, and in the process you will reflect on what you do right and what is not appropriate, and slowly change. But your three views are still very stable, because the habits of the past ten years or even decades are difficult to change. After going to college and getting a job, your criteria for judging may change a lot.

You will basically form your own principles and ways of dealing with them, and know what kind of people to make friends with and what kind of work to do. Although under the baptism of reality, many people can't insist on themselves.

Many people say that universities are "semi-social", and this is true. In the university, everyone's planning is different, some are examined, some are employed, some go abroad, and some are civil servants, and the most important thing is to know what they want to do with their own basic standards. Those who are already employed should understand their original standards and principles, and do not give up their original dreams.

I listened to a lecture by a famous teacher who was going to graduate school before, although I was still far from being admitted to graduate school. The graduate school entrance examination teacher talked about a lot of cases of his students, renting a bed in the basement of Peking University to take the postgraduate entrance examination, and students who have been working hard in Beijing. They all have their own dreams.

Even though the reality is cruel, even if I have not fully entered society, one thing is very clear: I should never easily change my principles and judgment standards. It's good to have a dream, and to make it happen to the best of your ability.

The quality of a thing tends to be evaluated a lot. The perception of the general public also forms an overall impression.

For example, some advertising slogans have the phrase "use it to say it is good". It will make people feel that the public impression of this thing is good.

I think that when it comes to judging something, the value can be varied. Everyone is different, and there are a thousand Hamlets in the hearts of a thousand people.

I think this style is novel, and other people may think that this style is too exaggerated; I think this tastes good, and some people will find it unpleasant; The colors of my mission are very fresh, and some people may think that they are too plain and bland. However, it is true that many beautiful things can be recognized by the public and can also get the most praise.

Where does the standard come from? It's just a scale in my heart.

Don't have to succumb to other people's aesthetics, opinions, concepts... It's a time of diversity, and your style can be sweet, gothic, atmospheric, and so on. If you blindly pursue trends, won't you lose your self-standards?

Judging things whether they are good or bad is both self and public. We also often hear the phrase "three views are not correct".

Different growth experiences and life backgrounds make people have different values. Many people think they have the right idea about a hot issue, but many people find it ridiculous.

Everyone is immersed in their own world, and sober people are looking for it? Countless people are exporting their own opinions, from social hotspots to life attitudes, so there are also many people with the same standards who form a group and then attack other groups.

What I say is actually exporting my values to the outside world.

There will not be a lot of compatibility between people's hearts, and seeking standards is also a mystical science.

Criteria for judging old and new things:

New things conform to the inevitable trend of the development of things, and have strong vitality and lofty development prospects, while old things have lost the inevitability of existence, lost their vitality and development prospects, and are therefore inevitably replaced by new things.

The new is superior to the old. The new thing negates the decay and obsolescence of the old thing, absorbs and develops the positive elements of the old thing, and adds new content that cannot be accommodated in the old thing.

The process of movement and change of things from small to large, from simple to complex, from low to high, from old matter to new matter. The cause of the development of things is the universality of the connection of things, and the root of the development of things is the internal contradiction of things, that is, the internal causes of things. Materialist dialectics holds that matter is the material of motion, motion is the fundamental attribute of matter, and the forward, ascending, and progressive movement is development.

The root of development is the internal contradiction of things.

The criterion for judging whether a thing is new or not: whether it is something that conforms to objective laws, has strong vitality and has great prospects.

New things refer to things that conform to the objective laws and trends of the development of things, and have strong vitality and great prospects. New things are invincible, which is determined by the nature of the development of things and the nature of new things. New things and old things in the philosophical sense are not defined by the time when things appear, but are distinguished by whether they conform to the objective law of the development of things, whether they have strong vitality and great prospects.

Criterion: whether it is consistent with the inevitable trend of historical development.

Explanation: The basic trend of natural, social and human development is that new things are constantly being produced and old things are constantly perishing, and metabolism is the universal law of movement in the universe that is not subject to human will. The so-called new things refer to things that conform to the direction of historical progress and have great prospects, while on the contrary, old things are things that gradually lose their inevitability of existence in the course of historical development and are dying out day by day.

To identify whether a thing is new or old, the most fundamental thing is to see whether it conforms to the inevitable trend of historical development, and we cannot only look at the order of the time in which it appeared, nor can we rely on whether it is novel in form, and what is recognized by the majority of people is not necessarily a new thing.

The criteria for judging something new can be considered from different angles, including the following:

Feasibility: whether the new thing can be realized and implemented, and whether it meets the actual situation and social needs.

Innovation: Whether the new thing is unique and innovative, whether it can bring new thinking and development opportunities.

Sustainability: whether the new thing can survive and play a role for a long time, and whether it can adapt to different environments and times.

Social benefits: whether the new thing has a positive impact and contribution to society, economy, environment, etc.

Ethics: Whether the new thing meets ethical and moral standards, and whether it will cause ethical and moral problems for human beings.

Different new things may be judged by different standards, and the judging criteria need to comprehensively consider various factors and make judgments and decisions based on the actual situation.

I haven't seen it, I don't know it, I haven't touched it.

In this case, a natural requirement arises that when discussing a problem, there should be a standard agreed upon by the members of the organization, on which to judge whether one opinion is correct and whether one opinion is more correct than others. Only in this way can when there is a controversy, there will be no situation in which everyone "says that the public is justified, and the mother-in-law says that the mother-in-law is reasonable", and can we ensure that there is a conclusion.

We often say that practice is the only criterion for testing truth. In other words, the most effective criterion for judging whether an opinion is correct or not is practice. If we can guide or even lead practice when applying this kind of opinion to practice, then this opinion is undoubtedly correct, and if we are not able to guide practice, then this opinion is undoubtedly wrong.

However, the wrong ideas have already been put into practice, and the time may be over.

Thus, the paradox arises: we can only know whether an opinion is correct after the fact, but we have to judge whether an opinion is correct beforehand.

Some people may say that according to your standards, it is not possible to judge whether an opinion is correct or not, regardless of whether it is a "listen to whoever is right" method.

Of course, this is good, but in other ways, such as determining the correctness of opinions by the level of position, determining the correctness of opinions by the amount of experience, determining the correctness of opinions by the number of people who agree, and so on, what they pursue is not the absolute correctness of opinions, but the best choice under limited conditions, which is a goal that is easier to achieve, and is more operable, and more able to seize opportunities and meet the needs of things. The level of position, the amount of experience, and the number of people who agree with it can be clearly and accurately judged.

The first problem to be faced by adopting the method of "listening to whoever has the right opinion" is that it is difficult to unify the criteria for judging whether it is correct or not, because it is difficult to achieve absolute correctness. Perhaps they could also come up with a uniform criterion, that is, the criterion that best fits the reality and essence of the transaction. However, everyone has his own perceived reality, and each person has his own perceived nature of affairs, and, because of the difference between people, this reality and essence are different.

Therefore, this kind of standard seems to be a valid standard on the surface, but it cannot be effectively applied in practice, and it cannot become a standard at all, and it is a false standard.