Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

if holy books were orphaned.(no followings)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • if holy books were orphaned.(no followings)

    So I am reading sort of works of suqraat arasto feesaghoras etc etc
    They were the brightest mind of their time.. perhaps all times.
    They all tried to build a story in which every things fits, life death education govt etc etc.

    It got me thinking, that if we had religious books with out any religious following.. those religious text would make a more
    solid story.

    Neither the work of greek philosopher could be tested empirically nor the holy books.
    But as for as the story goes.. Prophets had it more together.

    Greeks had teacher discussion etc.. prophets did not.

    With the exception of hinduism, they let greek style wild imagination into the books.

    Very strange.

    I guess that could be the reason Noam Chomsky always called Prophets 'philosophers'.. I always wondered why.. I know now.

    ﺃﷲ ﻧﯣﺮ ﺇﺴﻣﺇﯣﺇﺕ ﯣﺇﻠﺄﺮﺾ_ Best cheese-maker of monkVille

  • #2
    It is good one of us knows what you are saying
    Why isn't the Dividend story among the featured threads?

    Comment


    • Cashmere
      Cashmere commented
      Editing a comment
      Monk almost always needs a translator. Surprising I know. Especially when he ought to be correctly analyzing, diving deep into holy scriptures and conveying the word of God to enlighten us commoners.

  • #3
    ok back then when Greeks were writing, it was strange landscape. intellectually speaking you could not tell your ### from your face.
    There were no great bodies or work you kept your self aligned with.
    So in trying to make sense of things they went all over the place. Including contradicting themselves and few logical errors.
    Yet out come was a tradition of thinking and a rather simple story. We talk about that story. Story about life, death, afterlife, purpose of life, conduct.

    Now take holy books, disregard their religious aspect. Take them as an other story trying to make sense of things.

    What I am saying those religious text did have a rather concrete story compare to the stories of brightest minds of that time.

    Its surprising.

    come on now.. was that too hard to understand ?
    ﺃﷲ ﻧﯣﺮ ﺇﺴﻣﺇﯣﺇﺕ ﯣﺇﻠﺄﺮﺾ_ Best cheese-maker of monkVille

    Comment


    • #4
      Anything holy cannot ever be orphaned.


      #TheEnd
      My degree of sarcasm is directly related with your level of stupidity.
      "Hamari Koi aur branch nahi hai"

      Comment


      • #5
        Originally posted by Monk View Post
        ok back then when Greeks were writing, it was strange landscape. intellectually speaking you could not tell your ### from your face.
        There were no great bodies or work you kept your self aligned with.
        So in trying to make sense of things they went all over the place. Including contradicting themselves and few logical errors.
        Yet out come was a tradition of thinking and a rather simple story. We talk about that story. Story about life, death, afterlife, purpose of life, conduct.

        Now take holy books, disregard their religious aspect. Take them as an other story trying to make sense of things.

        What I am saying those religious text did have a rather concrete story compare to the stories of brightest minds of that time.

        Its surprising.

        come on now.. was that too hard to understand ?


        A. You suggested that we deduct religion from Holy scriptures and surprise ourselves with great stories. I agree, holy scriptures do contain quality plot and moral lessons and I find it amazing how connectable the dots are between various religious scriptures and perspectives. The same way readers often wonder how a book might have been different if point of view was changed (first, second, third person). However, literary judgement relies on personal taste and experience (quality/quantity of literature read over a lifespan). Your definition of superior literature = substantial anecdotes. But that's not the case for a majority of readers. Therefore, rating the literary content of religious scriptures will always be quite debatable from a secular standpoint.

        B. You criticize Greek literature as unintelligent and indistinct. How much Greek literature have you read? And if you don?t mind me asking, what exactly have you read? I assure you they wrote much more than the following list of what I have personally read of Greek literature: mythologies, philosophies, elegies, tragedies, poetries. There is an ample amount of content I have NOT read including politics, sciences, art and technology. So I?m not understanding why you mentioned all they wrote was ""Life, death, purpose of life etc"".
        Yes, philosophical literature was a common genre because people at that time needed psychological/spiritual guidance. Can't compare it to your favorite ""stories"" which are usually passed down verbally from a generation to the next. Limitation does not equate to nonexistence.

        As a substitute to deriding an entire breed of literature as base, I?d reevaluate my own bias and go on to analyze the very basic principle of all writing: Literature changes with the people. Writing trends and taste (for example renaissance, reformation, etc) go in and out of style like all else in the world. And people only preserve literature that they deem worthy of endurance in time.
        Instead of highlighting ancestral incompetence and fatuity based on 0-2 books read, we should learn to appreciate the essence of ancient wisdom that each and every book holds, despite its origin.
        Last edited by Cashmere; 3 weeks ago.
        "Understand the nature of impurity. If your key is bent, the lock will not open." Rumi

        Comment


        • #6
          What I understood from second message was that Greeks ### looks like their face.

          Now, that is not very nice, Mr. Monk
          Why isn't the Dividend story among the featured threads?

          Comment


          • #7
            Monk, you are right in some way. But here is the thing. Another word for Prophet is Messenger. The divine books which contained solid lessons, references and stories of people who had passed earlier still need a human to be bestowed upon. Yes it could very well be something like everyone is asked to gather in a large ground by a loud unseen voice and then the aayah are revealed, but is it really practical? I dont think so. So its one person (prophet) to all others. The prophet's job was not to explain the mystery, rather move the lesson or the message ahead while at the same time incorporating it within themselves.

            The greeks were way different than this. They were doing the research coming up with their own ideology as per their scientific (or other) expertise and then they had to explain that as well.

            And thats exactly why most of the philosophers couldnt be understood very well and their message wasnt propagated that effectively. Example: Leonardo Da Vinci.


            good topic though. keep it coming

            Comment


            • #8
              Originally posted by Cashmere View Post



              A. You suggested that we deduct religion from Holy scriptures and surprise ourselves with great stories. I agree, holy scriptures do contain quality plot and moral lessons and I find it amazing how connectable the dots are between various religious scriptures and perspectives. The same way readers often wonder how a book might have been different if point of view was changed (first, second, third person). However, literary judgement relies on personal taste and experience (quality/quantity of literature read over a lifespan). Your definition of superior literature = substantial anecdotes. But that's not the case for a majority of readers. Therefore, rating the literary content of religious scriptures will always be quite debatable from a secular standpoint.
              No I shared my feelings only.
              B. You criticize Greek literature as unintelligent and indistinct. How much Greek literature have you read? And if you don?t mind me asking, what exactly have you read? I assure you they wrote much more than the following list of what I have personally read of Greek literature: mythologies, philosophies, elegies, tragedies, poetries. There is an ample amount of content I have NOT read including politics, sciences, art and technology. So I?m not understanding why you mentioned all they wrote was ""Life, death, purpose of life etc"".
              Yes, philosophical literature was a common genre because people at that time needed psychological/spiritual guidance. Can't compare it to your favorite ""stories"" which are usually passed down verbally from a generation to the next. Limitation does not equate to nonexistence.
              I appreciated(as in measure or valued) barren landscape around those philosophers. In that environment coming up with logic and developing ways of thinking is very remarkable.
              We now a days are like overfed spoiled fat domestic Persian cats, fed with knowledge and ideas. It was not care 2000+ and 3000+ years ago. We have luxury of looking thing empirically and it some what effect process of logic and philosophy. They did not have that luxury. So we and philosopher of our times could do safe thinking with make them self found too funny.

              As a substitute to deriding an entire breed of literature as base, I?d reevaluate my own bias and go on to analyze the very basic principle of all writing: Literature changes with the people. Writing trends and taste (for example renaissance, reformation, etc) go in and out of style like all else in the world. And people only preserve literature that they deem worthy of endurance in time.
              Instead of highlighting ancestral incompetence and fatuity based on 0-2 books read, we should learn to appreciate the essence of ancient wisdom that each and every book holds, despite its origin.
              Suppose I read suqraat's final court proceeding and his ideas that how he is going to be happy with divine after his death. You think after reading 2-1/2 books I am going to get updated version of his idea about after life ? It can't be because he died after that.

              So There are thing which you can conclude even 1/2 to 1-3/4 of book reading.
              ﺃﷲ ﻧﯣﺮ ﺇﺴﻣﺇﯣﺇﺕ ﯣﺇﻠﺄﺮﺾ_ Best cheese-maker of monkVille

              Comment


              • #9
                Originally posted by humming bird View Post
                Monk, you are right in some way. But here is the thing. Another word for Prophet is Messenger. The divine books which contained solid lessons, references and stories of people who had passed earlier still need a human to be bestowed upon. Yes it could very well be something like everyone is asked to gather in a large ground by a loud unseen voice and then the aayah are revealed, but is it really practical? I dont think so. So its one person (prophet) to all others. The prophet's job was not to explain the mystery, rather move the lesson or the message ahead while at the same time incorporating it within themselves.

                The greeks were way different than this. They were doing the research coming up with their own ideology as per their scientific (or other) expertise and then they had to explain that as well.

                And thats exactly why most of the philosophers couldnt be understood very well and their message wasnt propagated that effectively. Example: Leonardo Da Vinci.


                good topic though. keep it coming

                When ever I find some idea(specially strange ones) which is not in direct path of my future studies I try to open a thread at GS, that way idea just don't come and go. I kind of remember it for future.

                ﺃﷲ ﻧﯣﺮ ﺇﺴﻣﺇﯣﺇﺕ ﯣﺇﻠﺄﺮﺾ_ Best cheese-maker of monkVille

                Comment


              • #10
                Originally posted by Monk View Post

                I appreciated(as in measure or valued) barren landscape around those philosophers. In that environment coming up with logic and developing ways of thinking is very remarkable.
                We now a days are like overfed spoiled fat domestic Persian cats, fed with knowledge and ideas. It was not care 2000+ and 3000+ years ago. We have luxury of looking thing empirically and it some what effect process of logic and philosophy. They did not have that luxury. So we and philosopher of our times could do safe thinking with make them self found too funny.


                Suppose I read suqraat's final court proceeding and his ideas that how he is going to be happy with divine after his death. You think after reading 2-1/2 books I am going to get updated version of his idea about after life ? It can't be because he died after that.

                So There are thing which you can conclude even 1/2 to 1-3/4 of book reading.
                You did not specify your topic as Greek philosophy, which is why I understood your comments about books/literature in general. From what I understand is Suqraat is a Socrates, and his philosophy didn't benefit/add up for you. Sure, won't argue with that. To each his own.

                Of course we are at the better end of the rope where we have millions of researched facts/ideas laid out in front of us as opposed to ancient researchers/philosophers who constructed ideas on the basis of minimum premises or plain scratch. Today's generations although very capable of researching, fail to reciprocate that information productively to generate unique, newer ideas. We are a bunch of encyclopedias with no use for all the futile information we know.

                Now you're getting clearer with the topic. Good Job!
                "Understand the nature of impurity. If your key is bent, the lock will not open." Rumi

                Comment


                • #11
                  Originally posted by Cashmere View Post

                  You did not specify your topic as Greek philosophy, which is why I understood your comments about books/literature in general. From what I understand is Suqraat is a Socrates, and his philosophy didn't benefit/add up for you. Sure, won't argue with that. To each his own.
                  I absolutely love reading and learning Socrates Aristotle Plato and spartan philosophies(more like ideology since they did not like philosophy).
                  I am learning a lot about them.

                  I absolutely love their takes on numbers and almost all their process of thinking.

                  Like I said before we are over fed fat Cats, so I know ,so do you , for example concept of relative great and relative small.
                  For example 6 is greater then 2 and smaller then 9.
                  But this perplexed some of the above philosopher, that how can 6 be great and not great at same time.
                  So not sure about how much applicable learning can be done from reading them.


                  Of course we are at the better end of the rope where we have millions of researched facts/ideas laid out in front of us as opposed to ancient researchers/philosophers who constructed ideas on the basis of minimum premises or plain scratch. Today's generations although very capable of researching, fail to reciprocate that information productively to generate unique, newer ideas. We are a bunch of encyclopedias with no use for all the futile information we know.

                  Now you're getting clearer with the topic. Good Job!
                  But all the magic happen in ambiguity. Clarity is death of amazing wondering process.
                  If you lived in republic of monkville, you will have a travel ban on your self for not having ambiguity in thought process. ( don't tell me I not learning thing from greek philosophers )
                  Well till you presented some unclear ideas
                  ﺃﷲ ﻧﯣﺮ ﺇﺴﻣﺇﯣﺇﺕ ﯣﺇﻠﺄﺮﺾ_ Best cheese-maker of monkVille

                  Comment


                  • #12
                    Originally posted by Monk View Post

                    I absolutely love reading and learning Socrates Aristotle Plato and spartan philosophies(more like ideology since they did not like philosophy).
                    I am learning a lot about them.

                    I absolutely love their takes on numbers and almost all their process of thinking.

                    Like I said before we are over fed fat Cats, so I know ,so do you , for example concept of relative great and relative small.
                    For example 6 is greater then 2 and smaller then 9.
                    But this perplexed some of the above philosopher, that how can 6 be great and not great at same time.
                    So not sure about how much applicable learning can be done from reading them.



                    But all the magic happen in ambiguity. Clarity is death of amazing wondering process.
                    If you lived in republic of monkville, you will have a travel ban on your self for not having ambiguity in thought process. ( don't tell me I not learning thing from greek philosophers )
                    Well till you presented some unclear ideas
                    Haha! This made me laugh! But your last words are thought provoking. I figure the ambiguity in your writing isn't all that bad afterall.
                    "Understand the nature of impurity. If your key is bent, the lock will not open." Rumi

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X