Philosophy: books and discussion

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by aabeg100

Please accept my apologies. I posted a couple of minutes ago and recommended a book of philosophical poetry by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal titled "Asrar - i- Khudi (The Secrets of Self)". I have rewritten this post and removed the link to the book because it feels to me that this work is too religious in content and it does not seem appropriate to present it here.

Sorry for taking up space on this thread I hope you guys will excuse my intrusion on your interesting discussion and forgive me for it.

Anyways, look up the book on Google (I believe its in public domain) if your are not bothered by being confronted with a very strong religious philosophy. I felt it was a little too strong hence the rewrite of the post.

Asim

Hello, Asim, and welcome to MobileRead!

The Wikipedia entry on describes Asrar - i- Khudi as "the first philosophical poetry book of Allama Iqbal, the great poet-philosopher of British India." That description makes it sound perfectly appropripate for discussion here.

No need for the apology. You did good!

[TGS]

Originally Posted by beppe

Absolutely, and it is the fault both of everything and of the unknown,in the sense that specifying everything and specifying what we don't know is above my capabilities. It looks to me slightly more specific than some stuff we don't know. Of course reasoning on the unknown will bring us nowhere.

So the question is should we speak of that which we cannot know with more, or with less, precision

[beppe]

Originally Posted by TGS

So the question is should we speak of that which we cannot know with more, or with less, precision

We should always speak with the maximum precision.
On this, mathematicians are masters. For them, the maximum is to speak (write actually) with such concise precision that only 3 or 4 people can understand what they say.

It all comes down from the ancient secret society of the Pythagoreans.

By the other hand one of my teachers used to say. There is no point in trying to be rigorous with your mathematical style, because there will always be at least one that thinks and says aloud that your sloppy!

I came to the conclusion that one should know as much mathematics as possible and then forget about it.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by beppe

We should always speak with the maximum precision.

As I get older I seem to know less and less, therefore there is more that I don't know now than I didn't know, say, 20 years ago. Even that that I do know now I am not sure about. In these circumstances there seems to be both an increasing requirement for precision and a decreasing likelihood of achieving it.

[beppe]

the road to enlightenment

[nguirado]

Thank you. My wording caused confusion. The only reason I mitigated was to allow for the possibility that something can have a physical, scientific explanation beyond the reach of humanity.

So:

If the universe is only made up of matter

and science is the study of matter

and through enough proper "science," scientists can explain all physical phenomenon

then science can explain the universe.

Then, separately:

men are limited intellectually and technologically

some science is hard

men may not be able to understand everything about the universe because some answers may be beyond their ability

Originally Posted by beppe

Hello nguirado,

you use 3 times the world everything. The first time this use is not justified except from a blind faith in science which is in contrast with the argument.

Let me expand. The word potentially, that you prep-end, apparently mitigates the rigidity of the world everything, but it is inappropriate. In my opinion it is just hopeful. I have a strong opinion about this. I do not know of a single instance in which science has been capable of describing any single episode of reality with absolute precision. "Absolute" has the same "rigidity" of "everything".

It is my experience that whenever some non scientist, or quite often when a scientist with non scientific purposes, makes a statement about science, inadvertently or on purpose, his reasoning becomes fuzzy (from a scientific point of view)

Your reasoning has merits though, that probably might still float. To me it would be quite helpful if you recast it without making use of rigid words that when used outside a logic problem have a tendency to bring more damage then benefits.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by nguirado

T
men may not be able to understand everything about the universe because some answers may be beyond their ability

I agree with your conclusions wholeheartedly.

[FlorenceArt]

Before I leave for a 12-day holiday (yay!), I'd like to say a few words about Seneca.

I have finished reading the foreword, which was very useful in pointing out some of the main premises that all Greek and Roman philosophers shared, including Plato, Epicurus and Seneca. I may try to read Plato again with this knowledge. For the moment, I am halfway through the Letters to Lucilius. I bought the book and will take it with me on my trip

I think I have finally figured out why I enjoy reading Seneca, when reading Plato made me want to scream. It's not his ideas, although I agree with some of them, while I don't think I have met an idea of Plato's that I agree with (but maybe it's just me being pigheaded ). In fact, seen from this 21st century reader's point of view, Seneca probably had more in common with Plato than he has with any of my own views.

The big difference between Seneca and Plato is that Plato is trying to prove what he believes, and Seneca is trying to live according to what he believes. He isn't much interested in theory, and when he tries to convince, it's not about the theoretical principles of stoicism - he takes them for granted. It's about the need for a philosopher to live according to these principles, rather than simply paying them lip service.

This is just as well for me, because it spares me that ridiculous logic, based on false premises and misleading analogies, that I so hate in Plato, and that Seneca probably mostly agreed with. It also spares me from a complete review of Seneca's beliefs, most of which I know are untrue or just don't agree with.

What he does talk about is mostly things I can relate to: how so much of our already short lives are eaten up by claims from strangers that profit neither of us (the stranger or myself), for instance. How it's no use to complain about lack of time, when we keep wasting the time we do have. These things almost feel commonplace, and yet we spend all our life ignoring them.

I don't know, maybe I'm just reducing Seneca to a bunch of platitudes, but these platitudes speak to me much more than Plato's zany theories. I suppose Seneca may not have been very happy to see what I take away from his writings. On the other hand, as I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, it's amazing that I can find anything in common between myself and a Roman guy who lived 2000 years ago, had no need to work for a living, and had dozens of slaves to take care of his everyday needs (and of his vast capital)

[beppe]

Affinity? A common Zen quality? Noble souls both of you?

Thank you for sharing and have the best of time in your well deserved holidays.

[nguirado]

Please accept my apologies. I posted a couple of minutes ago and recommended a book of philosophical poetry by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal titled "Asrar - i- Khudi (The Secrets of Self)". I have rewritten this post and removed the link to the book because it feels to me that this work is too religious in content and it does not seem appropriate to present it here.

That's an odd thing to say since all great philosophers have dealt with religion in one way or another.

I know this will start a row, but one should only take theistic philosophy seriously. Think about it: If the world is only material, then everything has a material explanation. Love, consciousness, compassion, morality, etc. are all chemical reactions that came about through adaptation. Politics, sociology? Who cares? There's no right way to live. Live the way that makes your time here happiest and try to influence your society to move in a direction that suits you. You like equality, be a socialist, You like competition, go with Rand. Morality? Nature doesn't care. It seems more productive to study science.

And, the Greek philosophers assumed a divine order. Assuming a natural law doesn't necessarily mean religious dogma either. It just means that there's a right way to think about ourselves, morality, society, etc. and a wrong way.

Again, I'm trying to be descriptive, not insulting so don't get too mad.

To keep on topic, I'm reading Aristotle's Politics.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by nguirado

That's an odd thing to say since all great philosophers have dealt with religion in one way or another.

I know this will start a row, but one should only take theistic philosophy seriously. Think about it: If the world is only material, then everything has a material explanation. Love, consciousness, compassion, morality, etc. are all chemical reactions that came about through adaptation. Politics, sociology? Who cares? There's no right way to live. Live the way that makes your time here happiest and try to influence your society to move in a direction that suits you. You like equality, be a socialist, You like competition, go with Rand. Morality? Nature doesn't care. It seems more productive to study science.

And, the Greek philosophers assumed a divine order. Assuming a natural law doesn't necessarily mean religious dogma either. It just means that there's a right way to think about ourselves, morality, society, etc. and a wrong way.

Again, I'm trying to be descriptive, not insulting so don't get too mad.

To keep on topic, I'm reading Aristotle's Politics.

If you want to start a row, you'll have to be clearer about your meaning I am completely confused and have no idea what you mean

[FlorenceArt]

Hey folks, I'm on the holiday train now and posting from my mobile phone. Not as bad as I feared but still awkward, so I probably won't be posting much. Have good talks and see you in 2 weeks!

[beppe]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Hey folks, I'm on the holiday train now and posting from my mobile phone. Not as bad as I feared but still awkward, so I probably won't be posting much. Have good talks and see you in 2 weeks!

Enjoy, and a suggestion. Why don't you charge big Tom to keep an eye on the developments in this precious thread, during your leave of absence?

[aabeg100]

Originally Posted by nguirado

That's an odd thing to say since all great philosophers have dealt with religion in one way or another.

I know this will start a row, but one should only take theistic philosophy seriously. Think about it: If the world is only material, then everything has a material explanation. Love, consciousness, compassion, morality, etc. are all chemical reactions that came about through adaptation. Politics, sociology? Who cares? There's no right way to live. Live the way that makes your time here happiest and try to influence your society to move in a direction that suits you. You like equality, be a socialist, You like competition, go with Rand. Morality? Nature doesn't care. It seems more productive to study science.

And, the Greek philosophers assumed a divine order. Assuming a natural law doesn't necessarily mean religious dogma either. It just means that there's a right way to think about ourselves, morality, society, etc. and a wrong way.

Again, I'm trying to be descriptive, not insulting so don't get too mad.

To keep on topic, I'm reading Aristotle's Politics.

I can see where you are coming from in regards to following what you believe in and how every great philosopher has dealt with religion at one time or another. The only reason I thought the content of his poetry were too religious was because he (Iqbal) openly claims in some of his verses that his religion is the only right one.

I personally believe that such a strong claim should not be made in philosophical context. True you can comment on religious ideas or lack of them but to make a claim like this is kinda a wrong. (I would like to point out that I am of the same religion as he was but still I don't believe in making such claims.)

I would like to point out that barring some of these strongly opinionated verses I really enjoy rest of his work. Like I said before, his ideas regarding self recognition are quite interesting.

It is interesting to note that he makes this claim in this book only. In his other works he tackle the religion in a more philosophical light. e.g. in one of his lectures he says that....

" religion on its doctrinal side, as defined by Professor Whitehead, is ‘a system of general truths which have the effect of transforming character when they are sincerely held and vividly apprehended’. Now, since the transformation and guidance of man’s inner and outer life is the essential aim of religion, it is obvious that the general truths which it embodies must not remain unsettled. No one would hazard action on the basis of a doubtful principle of conduct. Indeed, in view of its function, religion stands in greater need of a rational foundation of its ultimate principles than even the dogmas of science. Science may ignore a rational metaphysics; indeed, it has ignored it so far. Religion can hardly afford to ignore the search for a reconciliation of the oppositions of experience and a justification of the environment in which humanity finds itself. That is why Professor Whitehead has acutely remarked that ‘the ages of faith are the ages of rationalism’. But to rationalize faith is not to admit the superiority of philosophy over religion. Philosophy, no doubt, has jurisdiction to judge religion, but what is to be judged is of such a nature that it will not submit to the jurisdiction of philosophy except on its own terms. While sitting in judgement on religion, philosophy cannot give religion an inferior place among its data. Religion is not a departmental affair; it is neither mere thought, nor mere feeling, nor mere action; it is an expression of the whole man. Thus, in the evaluation of religion, philosophy must recognize the central position of religion and has no other alternative but to admit it as something focal in the process of reflective synthesis."

As you can see he strongly believes in religion having a strong place in human life but he also believe that philosophy has the jurisdiction to judge it.

Anyways my point in initially removing the link was because of his strongly opinionated statements regarding religion.

If you still want to read his book and I would welcome honest comments on it from those who read it. I did provide the link to it in a later post on this forum. Post no 870

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

If you want to start a row, you'll have to be clearer about your meaning I am completely confused and have no idea what you mean

I was just saying that philosophy is describing ideal truths. If the world is only material (atheistic), then philosophy is irrelevant. Or, if the world is only material and one wants to know about morality or politics, study psychology or evolutionary biology, not philosophy.