Opportunity and reality in philosophy are dialectical categories reflecting two key steps in the development of each phenomenon or object in thought, nature or society. Consider the definition, nature and main aspects of each of them.
Opportunity and Reality in Philosophy
Opportunity should be understood as an objectively existing tendency in the development of an object. It appears on the basis of certain laws of development of the subject. Opportunity is an expression of a specific pattern.
It is advisable to consider reality as an objectively existing single set of laws of the interdependence of the development of objects, as well as all its manifestations.
Category Essence
In an effort to know the essence of processes and objects, a person is engaged in the study of their history, turns to the past. With the comprehension of the essence, he develops the ability to foresee their future, because the general characteristic of all processes of development and change, which is associated with their continuity, is considered to be the conditionality of the future, the present, and not yet arising phenomena - already functioning. One of the aspects of the relationship between the objective way existing and appearing on the basis of their phenomena is presented in the theory of dialectical materialism as nothing more than a connection between the categories of possibility and reality in philosophy.
Opportunity as a philosophical term
Opportunity reflects potential being. In other words, the category reveals that stage of development, the movement of phenomena, when they exist solely as prerequisites or trends inherent in some reality. It is for this reason that opportunity is defined, among other things, as a set of diverse aspects of reality generated by unity, a set of prerequisites for its change, as well as transformation into another reality.
Reality and meaning of the category
In contrast to the possible, the thoughts of man, that which may be, but not yet, reality is become. In other words, this is a realized opportunity. Reality serves as the basis for creating a new opportunity. So, the real and the possible act as opposites that are closely related.
Since any process of development and change refers to the transformation of the possible into the real, it can be concluded that the generation by the new reality of the corresponding opportunities, the interconnection of categories, constitutes the general law of development and change in the field of cognition and the objective world.
The historical aspect of the issue
The question regarding the possibility and reality in philosophy, their relationship with ancient times was the object of attention of thinkers. The first systematic development of it can be found at Aristotle. He considered the real and possible as the universal aspects of knowledge and real life, as interconnected moments of formation.
Nevertheless, in some cases, Aristotle showed inconsistency: he allowed the separation of the real from the possible. For example, in the doctrine of matter, which is an opportunity and can become reality solely through design, where this or that goal is realized, one can find a metaphysical opposition of the categories under study in discussions about primary matter as a pure possibility, as well as about the first entities that are pure reality. The consequence here is a concession to idealism in the form of a doctrine regarding the "form of all forms", that is, the "prime mover" of the world, god and the highest goal of objects and phenomena existing on the planet.
Aristotle absolutized the presented anti-dialectical tendency of philosophy of Aristotle, after which she deliberately put medieval scholasticism at the service of theology and idealism. It is worth noting that in the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, matter was considered an uncertain, passive and formless possibility, to which only the divine idea, in other words, the form gives objective reality in philosophy. God, being a form, acts as the source and goal of movement, the active principle, as well as the rational reason for the realization of the possible.
Nevertheless, in the Middle Ages, along with the dominant one, there was a progressive tendency in philosophical science. She embodied in attempts to overcome the inconsistency of Aristotle and present form and matter, reality and opportunity in unity. A striking example of the possibility and reality in philosophy is the work of Abu Ali Ibn Sina (Avicenna), a Tajik thinker of the 10th - 11th centuries, and Ibn-Roshd (Averroes), an Arab philosopher of the 11th century, in whom the presented trend was embodied.
Somewhat later, the idea of the unity of those considered on the basis of atheism and materialism was developed by J. Bruno. He argued that in the Universe, not form gives rise to the world in which we live, reality, but eternal matter has an infinite variety of forms. The matter, which is considered the first beginning of the universe, the Italian philosopher interpreted differently than Aristotle. He argued that it is something that rises above the opposite of form and substrate, acting at the same time as an absolute possibility and absolute reality.
The relationship between categories in the world of specificity
The Italian philosopher J. Bruno saw a somewhat different relationship between philosophical categories to denote objective reality and possible in the world of concrete things. So, in this case they do not coincide, they must be distinguished, which, on the other hand, does not exclude their relationship.
The called dialectical ideas by metaphysical materialism of the XVII - XVIII centuries. have been lost. They remained within the framework of a mechanistic understanding of determinism, together with the absolutization of certain connections inherent in it, as well as the denial of the objective features of the possible and random. It is worth noting that the concept of the possible supporters of materialism included in the category of events, the causes of which have not yet been known. In other words, they considered the possible a specific product of the incompleteness of human knowledge.
Interpretation by I. Kant
It is interesting to know that the subjective-idealistic definition of the problem of a possible and real life was developed by I. Kant. The philosopher denied the objective content of these categories. He argued that "… the difference between real things and possible is one that matters only subjective differences for the human mind." It is worth noting that I. Kant considered possible something in the thought of which there is no contradiction. Such a subjectivist approach to the real and the possible was quite sharply criticized by Hegel, who developed the dialectical doctrine of these categories, their mutual transitions and opposites within the framework of objective idealism.
The laws of categories in the philosophy of Marxism
The patterns of the interconnectedness of the world in which we live and the possible, which were geniusly guessed by Hegel, received a materialistic scientific justification in the philosophy of Marxism. It was in it that reality and opportunity were first understood as categories reflecting some essential and universal moments of the dialectic, in accordance with their own character of development and change in the objective world, as well as cognition.
Category Relationship
Reality and opportunity are in the so-called dialectical unity. The development of absolutely any phenomenon begins with the maturation of its premises, in other words, with its existence in the form of an opportunity, carried out exclusively in the presence of specific conditions. Schematically, this can be represented as a movement from a possibility that appears in the bowels of a particular reality to a new reality with its inherent capabilities. Nevertheless, such a scheme, being any scheme in general, coarsens and simplifies real relationships.
In the universal and universal interaction of phenomena and objects, any initial moment is the result of a previous development. It turns into the starting point of subsequent changes, in other words, opposites - real and possible - turn out to be mobile in this interaction, that is, change places.
Thus, having become a reality based on the results of the realization of the possibilities of the appearance of organic forms under certain conditions, consisting primarily of inorganic matter, life on Earth has become the basis on which the possibility of the appearance of thinking creatures has formed. Having received the implementation in appropriate conditions, it, in turn, became the basis for the formation of opportunities for the further development of human society on Earth.
Relative opposite
From the foregoing, we can conclude that the opposition of the real and the possible is not absolute - it is relative. These categories are interrelated. They are dialectically transformed into each other. It is worth noting that taking into account the dialectical features of the relationship between the real and the possible is important both in theory and in practice. The qualitative uniqueness of states that reflect the categories in question suggests that the presented difference must be taken into account. "It is in the" methodology "…, " V. I. Lenin noted, "that it is necessary to distinguish between the possible and the real."
Consider the ideas of V.I. Lenin
It is interesting to note the following:
- To be successful, practice must be based on reality. V.I. Lenin many times drew attention to the fact that Marxism is based on the basis of facts, but not of opportunities. It is worth adding that the Marxist in the premise of his own policy should put only indisputably and accurately proven facts.
- Naturally, human activity related to the transformation of reality should be formed taking into account the development trends and possibilities objectively characteristic of this reality. Nevertheless, this does not give grounds to ignore the qualitative difference that exists between the possible and the real: firstly, far from every opportunity is realized; secondly, if the possible becomes reality, then we must not forget that this process, which takes place in public life, is sometimes a period of intense struggle between the forces of society and requires focused, intense activity.
