writers, thinkers, & philsophers present theories, plots & a views of seeing thing differently.
who makes use of their work, time tells?
are these writers, thinkers, & philsophers suposed to set example. first?
should they?
Re: Problem with all words & no action
Whatever comes to their mind they write.....
Re: Problem with all words & no action
Yes they should!...otherwise all wat they say have zero credibility.
Re: Problem with all words & no action
^i wouldnt say so. although i agree the impact is greater when one leads by example but sometimes personal failings do not nullify the though process
Re: Problem with all words & no action
I had little exchange of ideas with a friend on the same topic. Below I am copying relevant portion that relates to exact same topic:
I have pondered over your opinions with due consideration.
You are saying world is not going to change as per the wishes of any thinker. Marx also says that changes in world come first and wishes follow those changes.
Hegel talks of changes in ideas, through the process of something like thesis, anti-thesis and then synthesis.. These changes would ultimately lead to the 'absolute'.... which is another pure abstract term... Perhaps, Hegel does not want to change the material world.
But Robert Briffalt (Urdu Translation: Tashkeel-e-Insaaniyat -- i.e. Making of Humanity) has pointed out that humans basically prefer acting upon only on customs and traditions. They would never deviate from their customs and traditions unless they accept some different ideology.
Marx talks of history in terms of 'class conflict'... He has no solid evidence of any such class struggle in history... Historically, poor people were in habit of obeying the riches or lords etc. They could never think of any such class struggle. In fact, the history of real class struggle starts from the time of Marx. It was the ideology of Marx which made the poor people conscious of this 'class struggle'... And then they really launched this 'class struggle'.... only because now they were conscious of this 'ideology' of 'class struggle or conflict'....
Marx is saying that ideas just follow the material changes.... But practically he is teaching such an ideology whose purpose is to bring about revolution in society...
Marx is saying the role of Philosopher is not to follow the established system... because role of Philosopher is to CHANGE the established system.
At one time he is saying that philosopher (i.e. idea) has to just follow the material environment.... but now he is saying that role of Philosopher is to change the world.
So he is having contradictory positions. Historical proofs however go in the favour of second position.
There are basically two types of changes in this world... (i) Natural Changes.. like ice age then warm age etc. etc. and; (ii) Man-made changes...
These man made changes are because humans can think and can 'propose' alternative ways of living and actions...
If there is no one among the humans, who can propose different ideology, then humans shall continue to live in a constant pattern generation after generation.
In the case of man made changes, it is the ideas that come first and the changes then follow those ideas.
Those who conceive ideas --- also do want the practicle implementation of those ideas. Confuscious was in search of such a ruler who could ready to implement ideas of confuscious in his state... Plato had proposed that Kingship should be the right of Philosophers.. so that they could implement their ideas...
Religious leaders first capture the minds of populace with the absolute type divine ideology... then implement that ideology...
Rational philosophers cannot say that their doctrines have come from devine --- but in order to ensure the vast scale implementation of their philosophies... they say that all the reality is contained in their philosophies. Then they try to look for some dictator who could implement those philosophies.
Ideas do give the temptation for the practical implementation.... Bur for this purpose, those ideas must assume a definite position...
If you are expert of opposing philosophies at the same time.. and assign equal weight to those opposing philosophies... you could not practically implement anything.... For the practical implementation, you will have to choose one particular and definite philosophy...
If you are not fully satisfied with any particular available philosophy... then you should select appropriate elements from all of the available philosophies... and in this way should construct your own definite philosphy... so that it could become practicable in best manner... as per your judgment.
Hegelian philosophy became state policy.... because it was definite... Marx philosophy was also definite ... and it has a famous story of its implementation.
It is philosophers who show some alternative direction to world.... If there were no philosophers.... then we still be living in the most ancient customs and traditions. Marx is not fully right when he says that ideas follow the changes in material world...though I also believe in the role of material environment in the process of the formulation of theories or philosophies. But Marx is fully right in saying that role of Philosopher is to change the world....
And the new ideas do work... they change the outlook of readers.... readers become able to judge the routine matters in a different way... Their actions are also affected in this way. Philosophies do translate into action.... but for this sake,,, philosophy should be definite, systemetic, comprehensive and clear....
Any system of philosophy cannot be the absolute truth in any way... But humans must act on any such system... obviously which is not the ultimate truth... but it can be better or suitable system than other available options..
A thinker must influence the actions of others.... in positive way... because it would be his contributions towards the process of change.
Re: Problem with all words & no action
excellent, iceburg.
Re: Problem with all words & no action
Thanks!
Re: Problem with all words & no action
when may one philosophical set of analysis leads to another, better set of analysis?
who truth to hold credible, when new ones as references keep appearing?
Re: Problem with all words & no action
are you looking for teh ultimte truth or can you accept that truth to us can be altered with the passage of time, what we know, and who we become, as a civilization.
Re: Problem with all words & no action
deep thought, Fraudia bhai.
let me get back to this one, in a bit :>
are you looking for teh ultimte truth or can you accept that truth to us can be altered with the passage of time, what we know, and who we become, as a civilization.
Truth is always the same. People change, but reality doesn't.
Our understanding of reality might be wrong. What we think is true might be way off the mark, but that doesn't mean that reality itself is changing.
Re: Problem with all words & no action
exactly so what is true to us today may not be true to us tomorrow because of the limitations of what we know.
notice i used the words "truth to us"
what we think is true today, we may not think is true tomorrow, either based on knowledge or perspective.
Re: Problem with all words & no action
Sometimes its about knowing when the truth does not apply.
Justice is nothing more than truth tempered with compassion and hope
Re: Problem with all words & no action
depends on whose definition of justice, in some cases it is truth burdened with revenge and payback.
exactly so what is true to us today may not be true to us tomorrow because of the limitations of what we know.
notice i used the words "truth to us"
what we think is true today, we may not think is true tomorrow, either based on knowledge or perspective.
Are you implying that truth is only relative and never absolute?
P.S,
I haven't read all the posts, my question may be just an inference out of imagination.
Re: Problem with all words & no action
no I am not making any statement. I asked dush a question that whether in her opinion there are only ultimate truths or what we think are truths based on what we know or believe at that point int ime but latrer find out that infact something else was true or we only knew incomplete stuff.
it was considered true at one time that sun revolves around the earth by certain people..yeah?
it was considered true at one time, and unfortunately in some parts still, that women are inferior to men..yeah?
heck..at one time it was believed that the up and down motion to clean your teeth is the best approach, then they said circular..
so frankly, many things we believe as being facts and being true even today may not be that..
my post was a question on how we were defininf 'truth'
Re: Problem with all words & no action
But X2, you do agree that there IS an absolute truth, it's just our understanding of it that changes with time.
Like looking through a distant tree from tinted windows. The tree is green but it may appear to be different colors depending on which colored glass we view it through.