Possibility and reality in philosophy are dialectical categories that reflect two key stages in the development of each phenomenon or object in thinking, nature or society. Consider the definition, essence and main aspects of each of them.
Possibility and reality in philosophy
Possibility should be understood as an objectively existing trend in the development of the subject. It appears on the basis of certain regularities in the development of the subject. Opportunity is the expression of a particular pattern.
Reality should be considered as an objectively existing single set of patterns of interdependence in the development of objects, as well as all its manifestations.
Essence of categories
In an effort to know the essence of processes and objects, a person studies their history, turns to the past. With the comprehension of the essence, he acquires the ability to foresee their future, because the general characteristic of all processes of development and change, which is associated with their continuity, is the conditionality of the future.present, and not yet arisen phenomena - already functioning. One of the aspects of the relationship between objectively existing phenomena and phenomena appearing on their basis is presented in the theory of dialectical materialism as nothing more than a connection between the categories of possibility and reality in philosophy.
Possibility as a philosophical term
Possibility reflects potential being. In other words, the category reveals that stage of development, the movement of phenomena, when they exist exclusively as prerequisites or tendencies inherent in some reality. It is for this reason that possibility is defined, among other things, as a set of diverse aspects of reality generated by unity, a complex 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, what can be, but not yet, reality is become. In other words, it is a realized opportunity. Reality serves as the basis for creating a new possibility. Thus, the actual and the possible act as opposites, which are closely related.
Since any process of development and change refers to the transformation of the possible into the actual, we can conclude that the generation of the corresponding possibilities by the new reality, the interconnection of categories constitutes the general law of development and change in the field of cognition and the objective world.
Historical aspect of the issue
The question of possibility and reality in philosophy, their relationship has been the object of attention of thinkers since ancient times. The first systematic development of it can be found in Aristotle. He considered the real and the possible as universal aspects of cognition and real life, as interconnected moments of formation.
Nevertheless, in some cases, Aristotle showed inconsistency: he allowed the real to be separated from the possible. For example, in the doctrine of matter, which is a possibility and is capable of becoming a reality solely through the formation, where this or that goal is realized, in the reasoning about the primal matter as the purest possibility, as well as about the first essences that act as pure reality, one can find a metaphysical opposition of the studied categories. 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.
The presented anti-dialectical tendency of Aristotle's philosophy was absolutized, after which medieval scholasticism consciously placed it at the service of theology and idealism. It is worth noting that in the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, matter was considered an indefinite, 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 a source and goal of movement, an active principle, as well as a reasonable cause for realization.possible.
Nevertheless, in the Middle Ages, along with the dominant trend, there was also a progressive trend in philosophical science. It was embodied in attempts to overcome the inconsistency of Aristotle and present form and matter, reality and possibility 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-1st century, in which the presented trend was embodied.
Somewhat later, the idea of the unity of atheism and materialism, considered on the basis of atheism, was developed by J. Bruno. He argued that in the Universe it is not the form that gives rise to the world in which we live, reality, but eternal matter has an infinite variety of forms. Matter, which is considered the first beginning of the universe, was interpreted by the Italian philosopher differently than Aristotle. He argued that it is something that rises above the opposition of form and substratum, acting at the same time as an absolute possibility and an absolute reality.
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 the 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.
Named dialectical ideas by metaphysical materialism of the 17th - 18th centuries. werelost. They remained within the framework of the mechanistic understanding of determinism, along with the absolutization of certain connections inherent in it, as well as the denial of the objective features of the possible and the accidental. It is worth noting that the proponents of materialism included the concept of the possible in the category of events, the causes of which are not yet known. In other words, they considered the possible to be a specific product of the incompleteness of human knowledge.
Interpretation of I. Kant
It is interesting to know that the subjective-idealistic definition of the problem of the possible and the present 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 things is one that matters only as a subjective difference for the human mind." It is worth noting that I. Kant considered possible that, in the thought of which there is no contradiction. Such a subjectivist approach to the real and the possible was subjected to rather sharp criticism by Hegel, who developed a dialectical doctrine of these categories, their mutual transitions and opposition within the framework of objective idealism.
Regularities of categories in the philosophy of Marxism
The patterns of the relationship between the world in which we live and the possible, which were brilliantly guessed by Hegel, received a materialistic scientific justification in the philosophy of Marxism. It was in it that reality and possibility were comprehended for the first time as categories reflecting certain essential and universal moments of the dialectical in accordance with theirthe nature of the development and change of the objective world, as well as knowledge.
Relationship of categories
Reality and possibility are in the so-called dialectical unity. The development of absolutely any phenomenon begins with the maturation of its prerequisites, in other words, with its existence in the form of a possibility, carried out exclusively in the presence of specific conditions. Schematically, this can be depicted as a movement from a possibility that appears in the depths of this or that reality to a new reality with its inherent possibilities. 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 previous development. It turns into the starting point for subsequent changes, in other words, the opposites - the actual and the possible - turn out to be mobile in this interaction, that is, they change places.
Thus, having become a reality as a result of the realization of the possibility of the emergence of organic forms under certain conditions, which consisted primarily in inorganic matter, life on Earth became the basis on which the possibility of the appearance of thinking beings was formed. Having received implementation under 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 above, we can concludethat the opposition between the real and the possible is not absolute - it is relative. These categories are interrelated. They dialectically merge into each other. It is worth noting that taking into account the dialectical features of the relationship between the actual and the possible is important both in theory and in practice. The qualitative originality of the states that reflect the categories under consideration suggests that the presented difference must be taken into account. “It is in the “methodology”…,” V. I. Lenin noted, “that one must distinguish between the possible and the real.”
Let's consider the ideas of V. I. Lenin
It is interesting to note the following here:
- To be successful, practice must be based on reality. V. I. Lenin many times drew attention to the fact that Marxism is based on facts, but not on possibilities. It is worth adding that a Marxist should put only indisputably and precisely proven facts in the premises of his own policy.
- It is natural that human activity related to the transformation of reality should be formed taking into account the development trends and opportunities objectively inherent in this reality. Nevertheless, this does not give grounds for ignoring the qualitative difference that exists between the possible and the actual: first, not every possibility is realized; secondly, if the possible becomes a reality, then we must not forget that this process, which takes place in public life, is sometimes a period of acute struggle between the forces of society and requires purposeful, intenseactivities.
Final part
So, we have considered such concepts as possibility and reality, as well as a few examples from life regarding this topic. In conclusion, it should be noted that the identification of the analyzed categories gives rise to dangerous passivity and complacency. Thus, understanding the dialectics of reality and possibility is determined by great practical significance, as it helps to find opportunities that are justified by the totality of real relations, to consciously fight for the absolute approval of the new, advanced, and also not to create groundless illusions.
