Re: Philosophy
Ah right the good old USA.
Re: Philosophy
May be, there is a group of people who beleives in a pink flying unicorn then how it has not some applications in real life - real life taken here as social life. Further, if it has really some applications in real life, then its not futile to debate on it, is it? By the way, you must have certainely beleived in HUMAN RIGHTS from your early childhood, try to prove them logically. In fact, in the entire history of western philosophy, no one has been able to prove what we call Human Rights. Most of the contemporary defenders of this concept, Richard Rorty being the one among them, only say this: Guys, we beleive in it, so we do, and so should you beleive in them. How would we say that the concept of Human Rights is logically more viable than the concepts of unicorns and witches. The only argument you can give me for it would be “they have applications in real life.” But there are societies where at least witches still have some application in real life. Give me some arguments from your crap Logical Postivism, or go to Wittgenstein as a first step in your real philosophical development.
I am Muslim, living under the gree-white flag of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Re: Philosophy
My loss??which one?
USA flag has fiftY WHITE stars;) …while the EU has fifEEN GOLDEN stars :halo:
so it seems from your location in your profile that you are also from the same place…BUT ignoring your own country 
nadeem…you may miss the point of philosphy, as i explained it is not about proving something as true or right…but rather it is about trying to become wise…
AND wisdom is highly relative…so as you said in the western world being wise includes believing in human rights, hence making any logical argumantation to try to defend it…
BUT it is very possible to LOGICALLY demonstrate than human rights are not more true, or natural than any other theory (sorry i don’t them)…
personaly i think human rights are based on the christian moral that emphasize equity among people, and kindness and charity towards the poor, ill and weak people.
Re: Philosophy
The World Social Forum 2006 a great event the changing philosophy,philosophy is not static.
Re: Philosophy
We all have a philosophy. Lets take a look at what is philosophy? Its a way one thinks. There is no such thing as right or wrong thinking.
Philisophical person is basically connected with one's immaterial being.
If you speak with someone and they claim " i believe this is right" thats their philosophy.
I meet a friend after a long time the other day and her philsophy is trying everything i life - even if it means putting your religion at jeopardy. Its her philosophy.
I loved my professors we use to argue over these topics for hours :~)
I remember my very first class of philosophy he asked me a question ! what makes you think you exist - and i went because you can see me so i believe i exist *grin - the amount of embarrasment after that *toba
Re: Philosophy
well well you are mixing philosophy with humour is that your philosophy Nia?
" Ideas are a system complete within us,like any of the kingdoms of nature---a sort of flora whose iconography will one day be traced out by a man of genious,whom the world will call a lunatic''
Is genius a lunatic philosopher?
LOL
Re: Philosophy
[quote]
May be, there is a group of people who beleives in a pink flying unicorn then how it has not some applications in real life - real life taken here as social life.
[/quote]
I can see what you’re trying to get at. However the argument is still illogical I am saying it should not be debated not that it doesn’t exist. As I belief a pink flying unicorn doesn’t do any good for anyone. There is no propose for it, if today you believed that flying unicorns existed you’d be labelled crazy. And why is that? Because it’s illogical in other words one is mentally incapable of perceiving reality and is disillusioned. Now I emphasise the point of disillusioned, for the reason that when one he is disillusioned he will precise his illusion as a reality. However, that still doesn’t make it reality! The point here I am trying to is that, no mater how much you believe in something it will not materialise into reality. We make a big distinction between illusion are reality. Reality is universal, and illusion is not, as two people will not have the same illusion.
[quote]
Further, if it has really some applications in real life, then its not futile to debate on it, is it? By the way, you must have certainely beleived in HUMAN RIGHTS from your early childhood, try to prove them logically.
[/quote]
Yes, however human rights can’t fall into the same category there has to be a need for them. Say for instance, there was a hot piece of metal and you burn your hand on it, then you think (philosophise) of how to make that say and you put a warning next to the metal – that has real application a pink flying unicorn is not going to help me in real life in my safety of advancement. And anyone who believes it does is disillusioned and should be locked up. And the same concept applies to human rights. Someone saw (reality) of humans being abused and then philosophised about a theory on how to protect them and out of that came the constitution of human rights – something that has real application.
[quote]
In fact, in the entire history of western philosophy, no one has been able to prove what we call Human Rights
[/quote]
That is beyond the point, the same argument could apply to the pink flying unicorn, and however we know human rights have an application in real life to protect humans. It physically protects humans, its much more powerful then an illusionary pink flying unicorn.
[quote]
Most of the contemporary defenders of this concept, Richard Rorty being the one among them, only say this: Guys, we beleive in it, so we do, and so should you beleive in them. How would we say that the concept of Human Rights is logically more viable than the concepts of unicorns and witches.
[/quote]
I’ve alluded to this earlier. Human rights is logically more viable because it protects humans the abuse of human is a reality you can’t debate reality put a pink flying unicorn is imaginary. Illusion is not reality no matter how much you believe in it.
[quote]
The only argument you can give me for it would be "they have applications in real life." But there are societies where at least witches still have some application in real life
[/quote]
You make a very good and valid point here. However, we know believing in any of this is not a necessity. We don’t all need to believe this crap to function, not believing in it not going to hurt anyone, unlike other issues which have real application in life such as human rights, human rights is a necessity. Wich societies are not.
[quote]
Give me some arguments from your crap Logical Postivism, or go to Wittgenstein as a first step in your real philosophical development.
[/quote]
What can be a better argument then reality? How can you even debate reality that is the ilogicality of this really daft philosophy of believing any crap you want to believe regardless of what application it has. Am not a Student of philosophy I am more science oriented am just giving my opinion. I say, you illusion is what ever you want it to be, reality is not!
[quote]
USA flag has fiftY WHITE stars ......while the EU has fifEEN GOLDEN stars
[/quote]
Sorry my mistake. When you said starts I just thought you’re probably from America. Am not too big on the whole EU thing. Europe is turning to America.
[Quote]
BUT it is very possible to LOGICALLY demonstrate than human rights are not more true, or natural than any other theory
[/quote]
I’ve just proved otherwise dear. Human rights are not a theory anymore they are a reality they are formed into the constitution and have real application of protection humans in my nations.
[quote]
personaly i think human rights are based on the christian moral that emphasize equity among people, and kindness and charity towards the poor, ill and weak people.
[/quote]
Islam says the same thing; I don’t see a problem with piousness and forbidding evil.
Re: Philosophy
Mr. Stomp, for the moment I an say only one thing. What we call Human Rights today is western/modern/liberal set of rights. There are and there have been more sets of rights (call them human rights if you want). Islam has its own set of human rights, whose some parts may co-incidently match with the western Human Rights. In Islam, there are verticle and horizental rights. Verticle rights (Haqooq Allah) are God's rights over man and the horizental rights (Haqqoq ul Ibad) are Men's rights over men as prescribed by God and further deduced from God's commands and man's social enviorenment, by philosophizing and debate. According to Islam, these are Universal and Natural Rights. Yes, you can call anyone not beleiving in western Human Rights and put him in somewhere, if you want. But remember that in philosophy, and in science as well, you can argue against theory how much established it might be.
Of course, Human Rights are a social reality today as they are included in the constitution od many countries, including pakistan. But the concept of witches was also included once in the official documents and beliefs of Romn Catholic Church. On what basis would you reject the latter and condemn the rituals connected with this concept, and simultaneously defend human rights? You may successfully do it by employing the standards of today's western tradition, but would it be logically correct? I donot think so. You cannot even judge Aristotlian physics by employing the standards of Newtonian physics, can you? At least Kuhn who introduced the concept of the paradigms in the philosophy of science would not allow you.
Maybe, the concept of natural human rights is based on some Christian insights, but unfortunately modern secular man has made Christianity quite impotent by secularizing it.
A detailed discussion on some other points you made is not possible before tomorrow or later tonight.
PS: try not to treat beliefs as natural phenomenon. Natural Science and Humanties are considered in the Western academic tradition as two distinct domains.
Re: Philosophy
But in todays Islam and for that matter in most of the Muslim things the stress is only on Haqooq Allah.Muslims don't care about Haqooq ul Ibad..In the recent past muslims have been associated with things most reactionary and retrogressive its only an irony of fate that the western world has turned against the muslim world.The western capitalist world and the most of the muslim world went hand in glove till recently..now the war between Muslims and the capitalist west is very interesting lets see where it leads us.
Things were discussed in the World Social Forum Karcahi 2006.
Re: Philosophy
Ref: parissenoor:
---nadeem...you may miss the point of philosphy, as i explained it is not about proving something as true or right...but rather it is about trying to become wise...
No, I don't think I am missing the point. Philosophy may not be exactly about proving something as true or right, but it is about discussing things with other people. And in discussions you defenitely beg for reasons. This is what I am doing -- I am asking for reasons for a belief in Human Rights. By discussion, by dialectic, one becomes wise. I beleive so.
Re: Philosophy
So think over it before you are overthought.
Re: Philosophy
---nadeem...you may miss the point of philosphy, as i explained it is not about proving something as true or right...but rather it is about trying to become wise...
No, I don't think I am missing the point. Philosophy may not be exactly about proving something as true or right, but it is about discussing things with other people. And in discussions you defenitely beg for reasons. This is what I am doing -- I am asking for reasons for a belief in Human Rights. By discussion, by dialectic, one becomes wise. I beleive so.
reasons to believe in human rights?
human are coward and lazy by nature, it's easier for them to achieve wealth and power by peacefull manners than wars. hence the need for social stability.
to achieve it they claim that all humans have equal basic rights.these are satisfying most human, and bringing the peacefull and trsutfull framework for proserous business.
Re: Philosophy
care to developp??
or you're afraid of philosophical debate?
i'm wondering why are so many people reluctant to engaging into philosphical debate?
is it by lack of intelligence?
fear of the (sadly hard) truth?
or laziness of mind?
Re: Philosophy
Philosophy begins from some basic question - Who I am? Where I will go? What is the purpose of my life? How could I live a good life? and so on. Everyone dwells on these questions at some point in his/her life but philosophy deals with these question in a systematic and serious way.
While philosophizing, you cannot take a start from nothing. My starting point is always Quran.
Re: Philosophy
While philosophizing, you cannot take a start from nothing. My starting point is always Quran.
these are more metaphysics than pure philosphical question
philosophy is not an egoistic topic, it is general and open minded..reasoning should begin from global and general to onclude to precise and focused points.
i think of myself as a tiny part f human group, which is also a tiny part of life on earth, which is a very strange thing in a inanimated huge universe...
so think about tha big universe, and its origin (Big-bang??) before going down to yourself:D
Re: Philosophy
well done stomp :k:
actually thats is what we concluded in school too…
to make things crazier… here is a notion
where does these ‘truths’ come from? someone may have ‘debated’ to derive to it right? granted yes, there may be several debates to get to that so why take the right away for discussion. Now, i agree that the unicorn is illogical, but why deny the right to debate that unicorn is logical. A simple example is that ther have been theories countered by new theories, so if the person who came up with the original theory were to claim that my theory is ‘truth’ and everything against it is ‘illogical’ then i guess we all would live in dark. The point is that there are several kinds developments in science and philosophy…
i. some are ideas out of scratch
ii. some are enhancements to those
iii. some are contradictions to those theories, which become theories
The theories are cultivated by the creativity and free-will of the mind i.e. willingness to dare. No matter how radical these theories may sound, the mere point of philosophy is to let flow of such thoughts and let your mind wander and see what it can come up with.
The point being that a debate / clash of minds abt anything should be acceptable. Chances are, its gonna enlighten your mind, no matter which side you are on.
Re: Philosophy
I will get back to you guys. I’ve been busy lately, am in multiple debates at my university and text debates. So I have to type heck load of text and do loads of research. At the moment I’ve just finished something, you guys might be interested in am going to post this in the one of sections. The title will be Islam and abuse to women. or something similar.
Here it is: http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?p=4001859#post4001859
Re: Philosophy
Of course these, but these are the questions the founder fathers of the Western philosophical tardition - i.e. Greek philosophers - were mainely occupied with. This is why they build mega metaphysical systems by syhtesizing the knowledge ganied in all other branches od knowledge. In other words, Philosophy with metaphysics was a quessn of all knowledges. Unfortunately, however, the modern philosophers, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, turned it into a kind of philosophy that mainely focuses on human mind.
Your claim that the metahpysical questions mentioned by me are egoistic doesn’t hold, because we refelct on these questions not as nadeem or shazia but as a human being, as a social being.
Big Bang is a scientefic theory and the concepts used in it will be doing fine as far as they are inside the conceptual scheme of the Big Bang theory, and in physics as well. But when you try to take them out of that context and use to deal with the metaphysical questions, it wouldn’t make sense. A theory that employs the Big Bang concept to tell me what is my origin will be another Scientefic Myth.
For me Allah is the Creator of this World, who by a single utterence created this world from nothing.
Re: Philosophy
I know parissenoor you are in the best phase of your life most tend to go off hook hope you are on the other side of the river safely and without risking your balance to do away with totem and taboo is a risky thing.