Substance · Consciousness · Field (Philosophical Reflections on the Existence of the Non-living World, Living World, and Human World)

Author: Ren Huizhong
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2003-11-01
Features: Later, Lenin provided a clear answer in "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism." He pointed out: "The only 'property' of matter is that it is objective reality, existing outside our consciousness." He also gave the following definition of matter: "Matter is the philosophical category that signifies objective reality, which is perceived through sensation, exists independently of our sensations, and is copied, photographed, and reflected by our sensations." Given the premise of transforming 'consciousness' into a product of the human brain, Engels' explanation and Lenin's definition are undoubtedly correct. This is because they clarify that the fundamental property of matter in relation to consciousness is its independence from human consciousness. The proposal of Lenin's definition of matter as objective reality signifies a new turn in the philosophical understanding of matter. It was an inevitable and correct choice to adhere to and develop materialist philosophy under the conditions of the rise of modern science, the collapse of the mechanical materialist view, and the inability to sustain old natural philosophy and old ontology. Although it "tells us nothing about what matter itself is," it achieves a certain consistency between the concept of matter and modern science. Indeed, in the history of human cognition, the concept of matter has undergone many changes and has been given different statuses and interpretations in various philosophical systems. In summary, there is a debate between "substance views" and "reality views" regarding matter. Reality views are further divided into "substantial reality views" and "relational reality views." The so-called substance view refers to something that serves as the subject, foundation, cause, and essence of other things, existing independently and prior to everything else. It ignores attributes and precedes relationships, being an existing-in-itself. Old Greek natural philosophy, represented by atomism, regarded a specific material substance as the origin of the world and the foundation of all things. Idealist philosophy, represented by Plato, considered the superempirical spiritual substance as the essence of all things. Both viewed the origin or substance they recognized as existing independently and prior to other things, and they regarded the origin of the other as the product and attribute of their own origin. If a "heap of loose stones" is a "complex force system with pressure and gravitational relationships," then why isn't the world limited to it as a "complex mechanical force system"? A pile of sand, a pile of cotton, a pile of corpses, and even a planet or a galaxy are not they also "complex mechanical force systems" with pressure and gravitational relationships? What is the difference between a pile of sand and a planet? A silicon dioxide molecule only acquires meaning when it is integrated into the planetary system of Earth. It must be integrated into the Earth's planetary system through rocks, the crust, and so on. Without their collection and transit, the Earth's planetary system would cease to exist. A single wheat plant only acquires meaning when it is integrated into the wheat field ecosystem. It must be integrated into the wheat field, i.e., integrated with elements such as soil, water, air, and sunlight, to obtain the conditions for its existence. Matter, composed of elementary particles, must be integrated through the collection of quarks