Is spirit equal to consciousness in philosophy

Satisfactory Answer Enthusiastic Questioner 2010-03-22Spirit Consciousness is not just a reflection for material existence Spirit is not equal to consciousness; consciousness reflects both matter and spirit. Consciousness, thought, spirit, and subjectivity are indiscriminately and arbitrarily mixed in some representatives of popular philosophical views. Can spirit be equated with subjectivity? No. Engels, for example, in his Anti-Dühring Theses, once said that mental consciousness also exists objectively. It is clear that even if spirit and consciousness are regarded as one and the same thing, spirit is not something purely subjective. This is quite obvious. The difference between consciousness and thought is actually quite obvious as well. The first thing I want to point out in this article is that the concept of consciousness, as it is called in popular philosophical opinion, is in fact confusing. The same word "consciousness" actually contains two meanings and is actually two concepts, but the popular philosophical viewpoints do not distinguish between them and use them arbitrarily. Consciousness means, on the one hand, the general term for sensation and thought, which, as a function of the human body, refers to an action; on the other hand, it refers to the result of the process of thought, or the content of such a result, which we may call the content of thought, to show the difference. Of course the two are connected; the content of thought as a result is the result of an action, and without consciousness as an action, there would be no content of thought as a result or the content of a result. Moreover, there is a great deal of arbitrariness in the popular philosophical view of consciousness. It lacks rigor. From time to time, consciousness is confused with feeling, such as in the so-called "substance" definition, that does not depend on feeling is not dependent on consciousness, does not depend on consciousness is not dependent on feeling; from time to time, consciousness is confused with thinking, such as the popular philosophical view that the relationship between thinking and existence is the relationship between consciousness and matter, both confuse the existence and the so-called "substance". For example, the popular philosophical view that the relationship between thought and existence is the relationship between consciousness and matter, which confuses existence with the so-called "matter" and thinking with consciousness. In fact, the more common*** and correct view is that consciousness is a general term for feeling and thinking. Thinking is consciousness and feeling is consciousness. Thinking is only one component of consciousness, and feeling is part of consciousness. Consciousness does not only refer to thinking, but in addition to thinking, feeling is also consciousness. Feeling is the reflection in the brain caused by the stimulation of the senses by the individual characteristics of objective things. Thinking, on the other hand, is the process of analyzing, synthesizing, judging, reasoning and other cognitive activities of the brain on the basis of representations and concepts. To confuse consciousness with thought is to deny that the senses are also consciousness. Whether we regard consciousness only as thinking or consciousness only as feeling, both are one-sided and wrong. Since there is a difference between consciousness and thinking, it is impossible to equate spirit, thinking, and consciousness exactly. This is quite obvious. For if spirit is equivalent to consciousness, then spirit cannot be equivalent to thinking; and vice versa, if spirit is equivalent to thinking, then spirit cannot be equivalent to consciousness. But since thinking is a part of consciousness, then it is also quite obvious that if spirit is not equivalent to consciousness, then spirit must not be equivalent to thinking. Is spirit equivalent to thinking or consciousness? It isn't. For example, courage, morale, wisdom, unity, instinct, etc. Courage, morale, wisdom, unity, instinct, and so on are of course things that are spiritual in form. They are dependent on human existence. If courage, morale, wisdom, unity, instinct and so on are not spiritual things, then courage, morale, wisdom, unity, instinct and so on are popular philosophical views of the so-called material things, or neither spiritual nor popular philosophical views of the so-called material? Obviously it doesn't make sense. The problem is not whether courage, morale, wisdom, solidarity, instinct, etc., are spiritual things, but rather, I am afraid, that the popular philosophical point of view habitually treats spiritual things such as courage, morale, wisdom, solidarity, instinct, etc., as if they were consciousness. But if we analyze carefully, such things do not belong to the category of consciousness. We know that thinking is the process of analyzing, synthesizing, judging, reasoning and other cognitive activities of the brain on the basis of representations and concepts. So is courage, morale, wisdom, solidarity, instinct, and other spiritual things a process of cognitive activity of the brain based on representations and concepts to analyze, synthesize, judge, reason, and so on? Obviously not. The most simple and obvious is instinct, if instinct is the brain in the appearance and concepts based on the process of analysis, synthesis, judgment, reasoning and other cognitive activities that is not called instinct. But instinct is the real spirit of things. We also know that the feeling is the individual characteristics of objective things stimulate the senses after the brain caused by the reflection. So are courage, morale, wisdom, unity, instinct, and other spiritual things a reflection in the brain of the individual characteristics of objective things that stimulate the senses? If the senses are a reflection of the brain, then what do the spiritual things such as courage, morale, wisdom, solidarity, and instinct reflect? In fact, courage, morale, wisdom, unity, instinct and other spiritual things are not reflections of the brain, and certainly not reflections in the brain caused by the stimulation of the senses by the characteristics of external objective things. Therefore, the above mentioned spiritual things are not sensations, and certainly not consciousness, which is the general term for sensations and thoughts. As concepts, courage, morale, wisdom, unity, instinct, etc. are reflections of certain spiritual forms. But as objectively existing spiritual states, courage, morale, wisdom, unity, instinct, etc. are not consciousnesses that reflect objective things. From this we can see that spirituality cannot be equated with thinking and consciousness. And this paper would also like to point out an extremely important conclusion about spirit, which is that consciousness (including thinking) is spirit, but spirit is not only consciousness. Spirit includes such things as courage, morale, wisdom, unity, instinct, and of course other things that are not part of consciousness. What is Spirit? The author of this article defines spirituality as "all that exists without (physical) quality". Such things as feeling, thinking, consciousness, culture, philosophy, literature, art, economics, politics, morality, law, nature, relations, laws, space, time, motion, value, price, etc. are all spiritual. Thought content that can exist outside the brains of the creator, the receiver, and the transmitter, whether viewed according to the traditional view or according to the definition of the author of this paper, is still mental even if the thought content is not consciousness. It would of course be absolutely inappropriate to treat thought content as something so-called material. From this fact, it also follows that spirit and consciousness cannot be equated. Consciousness is spiritual, but consciousness is only a part of spirit, not all of spirit. Also, culture, philosophy, literature, art, economics, politics, morality, law, and so on, which are the ideologies of society, are generally said to be the contents of thought, and of course they are also spiritual things. In addition, it has been pointed out in this essay that the various natures of matter exist objectively, but it is inconceivable to look at them as if they were so-called substances. The properties of matter are just properties, and they can be treated neither as objects themselves nor as other independent substances. For example, if a person feels the coldness or heat of water, the coldness or heat is the physical property of the water that the person feels, and the coldness or heat is neither the substance "water" nor the substance called "coldness or heat. I am afraid that even a three-year-old child knows that there is no substance called "hot and cold" in the world. Spiritual things also have nature. The nature of spiritual things cannot be material, but is undoubtedly spiritual. For example, from a broad perspective, ideologies are political, economic, military, and so on. On a smaller scale, music is classical, ethnic, popular, and so on. The nature of some things expressed in relative situations is actually the relationship between things and things. There are all kinds of relationships between things, such as the relationship between inside and outside of space, the relationship between distance and proximity, the relationship between time, the relationship between husband and wife and mother and daughter, the relationship between cause and effect between phenomena, the relationship between contradictions, the relationship between rights and obligations in law, and the relationship between thinking and being in philosophy, etc. These relationships are the same as the relationships between things. Countless relationships such as these exist objectively. Can we say that all these relations between things, or any one specific relation, is material? Obviously not. But according to the theory of the popular view it is simply unanswerable. Because in the popular view, what exists objectively is matter, and what is not matter is not objectively existent. For example, take the relationship between thought and existence, which is an objectively existing relationship. According to the substance theory of the popular philosophical view, if we say that this relationship is a substance because it exists objectively, then it means that even though thinking is not a substance, the "relationship" between this non-material thing and other things is a substance, which is not a kind of black humor. However, if one considers this relationship to be the so-called thought, consciousness, spirit, subjectivity, and not matter, then is it not true that the relationship between thought and existence exists objectively? If such a relation does not exist, then why does the popular philosophical view take it as a sign dividing the two camps, and why spend effort in arguing about it? Of course the attitude of the popular philosophical view towards such questions in general is to take a detour and avoid them. The various relations between things are spiritual. This view is, I should say, consistent with the facts, with common sense, and with the definition of spirit given in this paper. There is another kind of relationship or connection between things that is universal and inevitable, that is, what is called a law or a law, which is also spiritual. That laws exist objectively cannot be denied or doubted. On this point this paper is in agreement with the popular philosophical view. What is objective need not be material, but can be spiritual. What is spiritual need not be conscious, need not be subjective, and can be objective. Yet these are the things that the popular philosophical view fails to recognize, or avoids. Why is it that popular philosophical views never speak of laws only as objective, but not as material? The reason, of course, lies in the fact that what is objective is not necessarily material. For example, the laws of thought are objective, but are they material? Obviously not. If the popular philosophical view recognizes that the laws of thought are mental, but then argues that the specific laws about matter should be material. Wouldn't the laws of the unity of opposites that govern all realms, including the realms of matter and thought, be something both material and spiritual? Although for some people it may not be very emotionally comfortable to accept laws as spiritual. However, it is not in accordance with the objective facts to recognize the law as a substance. Different kinds of laws, both those concerning the relationship between matter and matter, and those concerning the relationship between spirit and spirit, or the relationship between matter and spirit, are all objectively existent and are all spiritual. Therefore the categorization of laws as spiritual is likewise not only consistent with the definition of spirit in this paper, but more importantly with common sense and facts. We know that time and space are both objectively real, and therefore of course objectively existent. However, due to the flaws in the so-called material doctrine of the popular philosophical viewpoints, time and space have become something that is neither material nor conscious inside the unified material world of the popular philosophical viewpoints, which is called the existence of matter only, which is inexplicable. They have become two monsters abandoned by the so-called material world. In fact, the definition of time is the sequential position of a thing in a process, while the definition of space is the system about the position of the existence of a thing composed of the elements point, line, surface, and body. Since both are not material in themselves, it is only right that time and space should take their place in the ranks of the spiritual. Again, motion is another monstrosity created by popular opinion. Motion is the process by which one qualitative thing replaces another. Since it is a process, it is certainly not a substance. But all forms of motion are undoubtedly objective, and all motion cannot exist independently of things, that is to say, it is directly or indirectly dependent on matter. Thus, like time and space, motion is not material, but spiritual. It was pointed out a little earlier in this paper that spirit, as the content of thought, exists, but it exists in dependence on matter. Spiritual things such as the nature of things, the relations between things, and so on, likewise exist, but are dependent on matter. This is a ****same characteristic of spirit. All that is spiritual as the content of thought is, for man, obviously an information, an artificial information. And how can something spiritual such as the nature of things, the relations between things, etc., not be a natural information for man. For example, we know that trees have annual rings, and people can tell from the annual rings of trees how much time a tree has grown . In addition to the content of ideas, matter is also capable of carrying other spiritual things such as the nature of things, the relationship between things, and so on. Another characteristic of these spiritual things is that they can convey a message to people, both natural and man-made. All matter has attached to it what is called information for people. The information attached to matter exists objectively, whether people can receive it or not, and whether they recognize it or not. But information is spiritual and not material. . Spirit is not equal to consciousness. Therefore, all that is mental cannot be regarded as merely a reflection of what is objective; what is mental is itself something that exists objectively. The one-sidedness of the popular philosophical view of consciousness, etc., is not only manifested in the fact that it fails to see that not all spiritual things are so-called "reflections" of objective things. The reason for this is, of course, that the popular philosophical view considers spirit to be a concept that is indistinguishable from and equivalent to consciousness, thought, subjectivity, and so on. Moreover, the one-sidedness of the popular philosophical view of consciousness and so on is also manifested in the fact that it fails to see that consciousness and so on are capable of reflecting both objective and subjective things, and that, according to the popular philosophical view, it is consciousness that is in opposition to matter. What is the popular philosophical understanding of consciousness? The so-called matter exists independently of consciousness, and consciousness, including thought, spirit, subjectivity, and so on, which are regarded by the popular philosophical view as equivalent to each other without any difference, are only reflections of objective matter. It seems that consciousness and so on reflect only objective matter, and it seems that what is reflected by consciousness and so on is also only objective matter. The popular philosophical view may be puzzled by this: does it mean that consciousness and so on reflect anything other than objective matter? The answer is yes. However, spirit is to be excluded here, and it has been shown above that spirit also contains non-consciousness. In this paper, we will not talk about "subjectivity", which is also recognized by popular philosophical views, but only about whether consciousness and so on reflect only objective things. The author believes that the above statement of the popular philosophical view is one-sided and incomplete. As a matter of fact, consciousness reflects not only objective things, but also subjective things such as subjectivity, spirit, consciousness, thinking, and so on. What is reflected by consciousness, etc., is not only objective things, but also subjective things such as consciousness, etc., itself. I am afraid that this is something that the popular philosophical view has not discovered, and perhaps the popular philosophical view is unwilling to discover and accept. But the truth cannot be ignored. Just as mirrors reflect real objects, such as people, tables, walls, apples, and so on, we call the reflections of mirrors on real objects mirror images. These mirror images are of course fundamentally different from the real objects they reflect. It is obvious that the mirror image of an apple is not an apple, and that an apple can be eaten while the mirror image of an apple cannot be eaten. The corresponding mirror images of various objects are also different. For example, the mirror image of a person is different from the mirror image of a table, and this is also obvious. However, it cannot be concluded that mirrors are merely reflections of physical objects, nor can it be said that only physical objects are reflected by mirrors. In fact, mirrors can not only reflect the real thing, mirrors can also reflect the mirror image. For example, periscope is to use the principle of multiple refraction of mirror image. That is to say, the mirror image may be a reflection of the mirror image, not just a reflection of the physical object, the mirror image is not just a reflection of the physical object. At this point it might be argued that what is reflected by the mirror is ultimately the physical object, because the original mirror image always reflected the physical object. This is specious. The absurdity of this logic is the same as if one were to consider anything one sees to be a bunch of elementary particles. For we can also say that any object is ultimately composed of elementary particles. What's more, most of the mirrors we see in our daily lives are plane mirrors, which reflect physical objects more realistically. But we know that there is also a mirror called the ha-ha mirror, it can also reflect the physical and the formation of the mirror image, but the formation of the mirror image and the physical compared to the shape of the mirror image is distorted, distorted. At this time we use another mirror to reflect the mirror image in the ha-ha mirror, can we still say that the mirror reflects the mirror image of the physical object? In the same way that mirrors reflect things, consciousness and so on can also reflect not only objective things but also subjective things that "reflect objective things". Moreover, it is as unreasonable to maintain that consciousness and so on reflecting subjective things is in the final analysis "only" an indirect reflection of objective things as it is to maintain that mirrors are in the final analysis "only" an indirect reflection of physical things. This view obliterates the qualitative difference between direct and indirect. For example, the objects of study in psychology and logic are themselves thought, consciousness, and spirit. Therefore, the concepts, opinions, propositions, theories, etc. that reflect these objects of study are undoubtedly reflections of thought, consciousness, and spirit. To be more specific, for example, concepts belong to the category of thought and consciousness. The concept of "forms of thought" reflects, of course, the forms of thought that exist in people's minds. Apart from that, does the concept of "form of thought" reflect any other form of thought that exists independently of people's minds as an "objective substance"? And according to the popular philosophical viewpoint, the so-called consciousness can only reflect the "objective substance", isn't it a sad paradox? It seems that the popular philosophical view's set of theories depicting the world is deficient and cannot be justified. Its fatal flaw lies in the fact that, on the one hand, it holds that the world is unified in the so-called matter, and that everything in the world is matter; on the other hand, it regards consciousness as something independent of matter and outside of it, reflecting it. In fact, it is a fundamental mistake to think that the world is unified in matter. The world is not unified in what is called matter. And certainly the world can never be unified in spirit. This unified world of ours can only be unified in existence, and existence alone is the highest level of conception that unifies everything.