Any person at a certain moment in life has an aspiration that is far from satisfying thirst, hunger, desire for sex - far from everything ordinary, physiological and idle. When you are saturated with the world, then you want to think about something deeper and more eternal. You want to "play" a philosopher who is able to solve the main mystery of life. But what is this secret? BroDude has many candidates for this role - let's take them out of the shadows in the form of age-old philosophical questions.
Is there free will?
We are sure you believe that you have free will, because, for example, you yourself decided to read this article, right? But the idea of free will is not as simple as it sounds. It is not characterized by the ability to make day-to-day decisions alone. When we talk about free will, then doubt immediately arises in the head, because any of our actions or decisions is the result of a whole chain of events that influenced our current state.
Here's a simple example:
There is a guy named Nikita. He doesn't like dogs, hates pizza, and is an accountant by profession. He also recently moved to Moscow from Uryupinsk. It would seem that these are all unrelated things that were deliberately chosen by Nikita. But let's suppose the following: Nikita doesn't like dogs because he grew up alone; he hates pizza because he was seriously poisoned by it as a child; he became an accountant because his school teacher was trying to make Nikita interested in numbers; he moved to Moscow because his close friend lives there. In other words, every decision is inextricably linked with an event, a predestination, an accidental circumstance. And where is your free will?
Promotional video:
What makes you you?
You clearly define yourself as a person - one of a kind. And you probably think that your personality is in your body - unchanged, forever, until death. However, we all know that cells die off, new ones appear in their place. And what happens? Does your identity lie in dead cells? Is personality not related to physiology? Then what is personality?
It is possible that this is some kind of genetic coding. It is possible that your personality is your environment, upbringing, experience. All of this is confusing. And here you can't find the right answer.
For example, there is a guy like Philip. He's a great tennis player with a hot temper who writes shitty. How did he become such a person? If he plays tennis well, why? Because he was born with the right genes, or because his father trained him in this sport as a child? Is he hot-tempered because of his neurological device or because he had a shitty childhood, and his mother constantly took out anger on him? Does he write poorly because his brain is incapable of understanding Russian grammar, or simply because he had terrible teachers? What made Philip Philip?
Why do we dream?
It is assumed that every person periodically sees dreams - vivid images, sounds, pictures in a dream that do not come at will, but for another reason. There is still no consensus on why a person needs dreams. In ancient cultures, people believed that dreams are a message from the gods. Modern theories are based, of course, on a different foundation.
For example, Freudianism evaluates dreams as attempts of the mind to fulfill desires, and for this the mind uses symbolism. If you want to pass your final exam, then you will dream of being crowned, and the crown here symbolizes the passing grade.
There is, of course, a theory from the realm of fantasy, which is related to the theme of parallel universes, which is actively promoted by the most odious physicists of our time. So, if we take into account the fact that parallel universes exist, then dreams can be echoes of what you do in other universes. If we imagine that there are countless numbers of them, then it is quite possible to believe in it.
Why do we feel emotions?
Almost all people have emotions, and if you don't have them, then you are most likely a psychopath. But we don't think so, because you are a nice guy who can feel anything with your heart. But why do we need emotions? Is this an evolutionary advantage?
It is possible that thanks to emotions, our ancestors were able to survive - emotions pushed them to mate. On the other hand, there are a lot of creatures, for example, from the plant kingdom, who do not experience emotions and calmly survive. Therefore, it is logical to think that emotions are not a product of evolution, but a product of our sociality. Society makes us evil, kind, angry, joyful - it encourages us to act in a way that is beneficial to us when solving specific problems.
On the other hand, emotions are more likely to harm than help, and where is the benefit from them? Sometimes it seems that most human emotions are a cruel joke of the gods.
Do animals have souls?
When we say “soul,” we assume that it is a spiritual and non-material part of a person that lives after death. It is not just mind or consciousness, and most people in the world will agree with that. Unless atheists shake their heads unsatisfactorily.
But if we assume that there is a soul, then does the animal have it? When we look at our smaller brothers, especially domesticated ones, it is easy for us to be convinced that they feel love for a person. On the other hand, all this may simply be a consequence of our centuries-old actions to bind animals to humans. We like it when cats purr and dogs rub their noses on their hands - we like to feel that, and perhaps we just trained them to show these "feelings" to people.
And here again the question of the soul arises, because a being endowed with a soul must love, suffer, feel. Is this animal capable of? There are many doubts here.
Can a person change?
You think about this every time someone from your inner circle stabs you in the back. Indeed, it is hard to believe that people can change. No, they really grow physically, become smarter, develop, they may even claim to change their minds in some things.
But if we drop physical and mental development, what remains? There remains a person who makes the same mistakes. It is enough to look at your acquaintances to determine people whom you can definitely trust. As a rule, such people leave a pleasant impression from the very beginning, they are executive, they always do what they promised. Another thing is the people with whom you will not have business. They promise, but they don't deliver. They say a lot, but do little. They want to receive, but do not want to give. And now the question: how often in your life have you observed that people change dramatically? Here we are - rarely.
Therefore, a person, most likely, cannot change himself, but he can adapt to the environment in order to logically respond to challenges, learn from his mistakes, and be better.
What is Consciousness?
There is no doubt that we have consciousness. It helps us move through time, helps us to be aware of it. Plants, on the other hand, are hardly aware that there is time in the world - they have no consciousness. Or is there?
This question poses a big problem for scientists. They can explain how physics works, how chemistry works, how biology works, how psychology works, but they cannot understand how consciousness works.
At the same time, there are many theories, but not one of them is not objective knowledge.
What gives life meaning?
Many people are puzzled over this question, not only philosophers and thinkers, but also simple workers, teenagers, housewives. Each of us wants to understand what is the meaning of life. But none of us will get an exact answer, because there is simply no answer.
However, there are always options. For example, life can be considered the greatest accident, a kind of evolutionary twist that does not mean anything. If you think in this way, then there is no meaning in life - life is self-sufficient by itself, without any meaning.
But if you do not believe in randomness, then a whole heap of meanings opens before you. Serving the master, as the samurai believed, can be considered the meaning of life. Reproduction can be considered the meaning of life, because many creatures are born only to bring offspring. The meaning of life can be hidden in secret books, popular movies, or even in kitchen conversations.
Does time have a beginning and an end?
People know a lot of facts about time. For this, we can thank Einstein's theory of relativity, which tells us that space and time are actually the "fabric" of space-time, which can be deformed by gravity and the like.
But was there a beginning? Yes, there is a good idea in the world (which is backed up by some evidence) that the space-time fabric of our universe appeared about 13.8 billion years ago. Before that, the entire universe was compressed to a point. Was there time at this point? Could this time exist without space? And if there was a beginning of time, will there be an end?
Difficult but very interesting question.
Are there other universes?
As a matter of fact, there are only two options here: the universe is one-one or their infinite number. Both options have supporters, but no one has any logical facts and refutations. If the universe is really something unique and existing in the amount of one piece, then surely it stretches over distances beyond the control of human imagination. But we firmly believe that somewhere in the distance there is the same habitable planet.
There are many times more theories of the multiverse. For example, the bubble theory, according to which there are many universes, but we can only observe one - ours. Other universes are located in an innumerable heap of light years, so that the light of distant planets has simply not yet reached us. Although it may well turn out that some laws of physics (it is not yet clear which ones) simply prevent us from seeing them. And there are impudent people who claim that our cozy universe is located inside a black hole.
There is also string theory, about which a lot has been written, but few people understood what the point is. In short, it sounds like this: elementary particles in our four-dimensional space-time are just vibrations of cosmic strings in eleven-dimensional space. And then various modifications of string theory begin: M-theory, F-theory, and so on.
Should everyone have the same rights?
Does everyone really deserve what happens to them? Maybe not everyone has the right to property, freedom and the notorious right to vote? What about killers? Do they even deserve justice? Is it possible to give scoundrels, scoundrels and freaks the same rights as good people? If people deserve justice, then it is logical to say that everyone determines their fate by their actions. That is, if you did not kill or rob anyone, then you have the right to a better life than a murderer? But if this is so, then why is everything completely different in reality?
The question is really difficult. Some are pulled aside, and they begin to reason in the style:
“It's a tricky philosophical question (and obviously has a lot of follow-up questions), but it's an interesting exercise to try and make a list of what everyone is entitled to. Is this just fairness as I explained above? Or is it freedom, property, peace, a clean environment, happiness? Or is it nothing?"
Should we help everyone?
The golden rule is: treat people the way you would like to be treated. And the adherents of this concept really make the world brighter.
Utilitarians argue that any action should be conditioned by the benefit and utility for themselves and the majority. People like that are called fucking conformists, fucking selfish and mean hedonists. But it's not that simple. Imagine a terrible post-apocalyptic scene. A tsunami hit the coastal city. Distraught with fear, the people in panic run towards the sea, sweeping away everything in their path. Everyone is striving towards the hills, squeezing through the narrow streets at a run. Of course, there is a crush, and you see how some old man fell, and no one is in a hurry to help him. A little more - and he will be trampled.
If you are a follower of the golden rule, then no doubt you will stop and help him, because you would not want to be crushed, would you?
A utilitarian would not risk his life for the sake of a stranger, because he has a wife, children, they need to be fed, and if he now perishes doing a good deed, then: first, no one will know about this; secondly, his family will be left without a livelihood; thirdly, it will delay the crowd and there will be more victims.
At such moments you realize that your childhood theory of good and bad has completely failed. What is right and what is not - everyone decides for himself.
What is more important, the needs of one person or a crowd?
Usually for this question, remember the good old "trolley problem". If someone has forgotten, then we recall: this is such a thought experiment in which a heavy uncontrollable trolley rushes along the rails.
On its way there are five people tied to the rails. Fortunately, you can switch the switch - then the trolley will go on a different, siding, on which there is only one person, also tied to the rails. The question arises: why the heck were they tied? And one more thing: which is better, five deaths or one? Someone looks at it from a different angle, for example, five saved lives or one. The utilitarian will, of course, choose the death of one. But a supporter of deontology will crawl out of his hole and say that switching arrows will be premeditated murder and, regardless of how many people you save, it will be wrong. Therefore, it is better not to take sin on your soul and not knock the train off course. Of course, the measurement of morality and ethics in numbers seems very strange, but it is customary to choose the lesser of two evils. Anyway,Most ingeniously, this problem was solved by the two-year-old son of Professor John Maxicampo, who simply put loneliness from the siding to the other five and let them all together under the wheels of the train. Equality is what matters. An excellent communist is growing up.
What is a just society?
Too many, when they say the word "just," mean "equal." However, in an equal society, everyone, regardless of lifestyle and work, gets the same thing. Speaking about an attempt to build an equal society a hundred years ago, it is customary to say "all are equally poor", which is not entirely correct. Justice is when everyone gets as much as they deserve by their work. Let's say you plow 18 hours a day, 7 days a week and get decent compensation for the actual lack of a normal life.
What is love?
One of the main philosophical questions that they tried to answer even from a scientific point of view. Like, it's elementary chemistry, the release of serotonin and dopamine in the brain. But the ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes argued that love is a striving for perfection, and he came up with a tale according to which old Zeus, in another fit of anger, broke a man into two parts. And now we are walking on earth and looking for our missing half.
All this, of course, is beautiful and smacks of sugary romance, but the pragmatist Socrates, unlike the playwright, did not try to add snot anywhere for the sake of greater emotionality. For him, love is the result of an understandable human desire to live forever. Because love makes a person have children, take care of another, and so on.
It is impossible to say what love is. Each of the theories is correct in its own way: there is a chemical attraction, and an instinct for reproduction, and the search for a dear partner. All at once - and nothing separately. So there is no need to define it with snotty quotes from poets of the past inspired by syphilis and wine.
What is Truth?
Truth is the source of evidence and reality. Confirmation, judgment, proven practice and experience. What exists in reality reflects reality, truth. What is truth? It is different for everyone.
Everyone has their own opinion on any, even a simple question. If everything were that simple, then there would be no wars, no disputes, no sense in comments on the Internet.
There seems to be an objective truth, like everyone knows that you can't eat shit, but there are people who eat it by the cheeks and say that it's okay. Even Descartes, with his criteria of truth, seems infinitely far from … oddly enough, the truth. We seem to know that we exist, but there are people who firmly believe that our whole world is an ordinary hologram created by the superintelligence. Apparently, the Yubisoft assassins were right: nothing is true, everything is permissible.
What is beauty?
Beauty, as you know, is in the eye of the beholder. Or, in other words, beauty is a subjective concept. This means that each person determines for himself what is beautiful and what is not. Even when it comes to contemporary art and Sveta Yakovleva. Even if you catch the admiring glances of onlookers on yourself - be careful, perhaps you just look ridiculous.
On the other hand, there are certain beauty standards. For example, mathematicians and anthropologists have found that the idea of a beautiful face has not changed in the last 1000 years. That is, beauty is universal, it is timeless, like the masterpieces of the Italian Renaissance, for the statue of David is beautiful even in the eyes of someone who cannot stand the sight of a naked male shame. Everyone understands that it is beautiful, but another question is whether they like it. Beauty shouldn't be liked, and the whole point lies in this simple formulation.
Why are we making art?
Art in any form (paintings, sculptures, theater, music, construction) is what people use. Art has existed for thousands of years, but those who laid the foundations of the crafts of the artist, poet, musician, by their main profession were artisans, hunters, gatherers. Some art forms served to transmit traditions and stories to their descendants, some were just for fun, and some existed for sacred, ritual purposes.
People have actually gone a lot further, applying artistic principles to sex, cooking, and more. Instead of just swallowing meat, we mock him for several hours, bringing the unfortunate piece of flesh to the status of a masterpiece. And why the hell did this happen to us? Why do we love to enjoy art so much, to stand for hours in front of a painting? Aristotle believed that happiness was the goal of life, and that art is an attempt to achieve that very happiness. No wonder they say that craving for beauty is in a person's blood. Although some art forms are provocative and even disgusting. But they are attracted to themselves by making them look at things differently and think differently, and this leads to happiness.
The only strange thing is that we cannot enjoy the beauty inherent in this world. It is difficult to answer whether this is an elementary consumer essence of a person or something else.
Leonid Novak