سـلي الـرماح الـعوالي عن معالينا** واستشهدي البيض هل خاب الرجا Ùينا وسـائلي الـعرب والاتراك ما Ùعلت** Ùـي ارض قـبر عـبيد الله ايـدينا لـما سـعينا Ùـما رقـت عـزائمنا** عـما نـروم ولا خـابت مـساعينا يـا يـوم وقـعة زوراء العراق وقد** دنـا الاعـادي كـما كـانوا يدينونا بـضـمر مــا ربـطناها مـسومة** الا لـنغزو بـها مـن بـات يغزونا ÙˆÙـتية ان نـقل اصـغوا مـسامعهم** لـقـولنا او دعـونـاهم اجـابـونا قـوم اذا اسـتخصموا كـانوا Ùراعنة** يـوما وان حـكموا كـانوا مـوازينا تـدرعوا الـعقل جـلبابا Ùان حميت** نـار الـوغى خـلتهم Ùـيها مجانينا اذا ادعـوا جـاءت الـدنيا مـصدقة** وان دعــوا قـالـت الايـام امـينا ان الـزرازيـر لـمـا قـام قـائمها** تـوهمت انـها صـارت شـواهينا ظـنت تـاني البزاة الشهب عن جزع** ومـا درت انـه قـد كـان تـهوينا بـيادق ظـÙرت ايـدي الـرخاخ بها** ولــو تـركناهم صـادوا Ùـرازينا ذلـوا بـأسياÙنا طـول الـزمان Ùمذ** تـحـكموا اظـهروا احـقادهم Ùـينا لـم يـغنهم مـالنا عـن نهب انÙسنا** كـانـهم Ùـي امـان مـن تـقاضينا اخـلوا الـمساجد مـن اشياخنا وبغوا** حـتـى حـملنا Ùـاخلينا الـدواوينا ثـم انـثنينا وقـد ظـلت صوارمنا** تـميس عـجبا ويـهتز الـقنا لـينا ولـلـدماء عـلـى اثـوابـنا عـلق** بـنشره عـن عـبير الـمسك يغنينا Ùـيا لـها دعـوة ÙÙŠ الارض سائرة** قـد اصـبحت Ùـي Ùـم الايام تلقينا انــا لـقوم ابـت اخـلاقنا شـرÙا** أن نـبتدي بـالاذى مـن ليس يؤذينا بـيـض صـنائعنا سـود وقـائعنا** خـضر مـرابعنا حـمر مـواضينا لا يـظهر الـعجز منا دون نيل منى** ولــو رأيـنا الـمنايا Ùـي امـانينا اذا جـرينا الـى سـبق الـعلى طلقا** ان لـم نـكن سـبقا كـنا مـصلينا تـداÙـع الـقـدر الـمحتوم هـمتنا** عـنا ونـخصم صر٠الدهر لو شينا نـغشى الـخطوب بـايدينا ÙـندÙعها** وان دهـتـنـا دÙـعـناها بـايـدينا مـلك اذا Ùـوقت نـبل الـعدو لـنا** رمـت عـزائمه مـن بـات يرمينا عـزائـم كـالنجوم الـشهب ثـاقبة** مـا زال يـحرق مـنهن الـشياطينا اعـطى Ùـلا جوده قد كان عن غلط** مـنه ولا اجـره قـد كـان مـمنونا كـم مـن عـدو لـنا امسى بسطوته** يـبدي الـخضوع لـنا ختلا وتسكينا كـالصل يـظهر لـينا عـند ملمسه** حـتى يـصاد٠ÙÙŠ الاعضاء تمكينا يـطوي لـنا الغدر ÙÙŠ نصح يشير به** ويـمزج الـسم Ùـي شـهد ويسقينا وقـد نـغض ونـغضي عـن قبائحه** ولـم يـكن عـجزا عـنه تـغاضينا لـكن تـركناه اذ بـتنا عـلى ثـقة** ان الأمــيـر يـكـاÙيه ÙـيـكÙينا الله! Source

يهب لمن يشاء اناثا ويهب لمن يشاء الذكور May He crown with eudomania your lives. With Salaams PK

All cars are green in color, and Isuzu is a car.So all Isuzu are green in color. The above argument is true despite the fact of a false premise!. Your argument is in the form of a simple syllogims. P1: All cars are green P2: Isuzu is a car C: Therefore, Isuzu is green Now this argument is valid because you are compelled to accept the conclusion if you accept P1 and P2. It is not, however, a "true" argument but a valid one. Truth is a property of statments and propositions and not of arguments. It would be incorrect to say that an argument is "true" or "false", arguments are only valid/invalid or sound/unsound. Equally important is the fact that this argument is unsound ; an argument is unsound if one or more of its premises is false. In this case, P1 is clearly false as all cars are not green. An argument becames invalid when you deny the antecedent( i usually confuse this with modus ponen)and when you affirm the consequent. Yes. Denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent are both invalid methods of inference, and as such errors in reasoning (fallacies). In order to reason correctly, we can either affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent. This is in essence the meaning of modus ponens (to affirm the antecedent) and modus tollens (to deny the consequent). Modus ponens and Modus tollens are valid inferences; fallacies occur when you "deny" instead of affirm the antecedent, and affirm instead of deny the consequent. For example, Oxygen is a necessary (but not, sufficient) condition of combustion, which means that unless there is oxygen, combustion cannot occur, but does not mean, that if there is oxygen, then combustion will occur. So, the existence of oxygen is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition of combustion. On the other hand take the following example: being decapitated is a sufficient condition of death, but it is not a necessary condition of death. Which is to say, although it is true that if a person is decapitated he will die, it is not true that only if he is decaptitated, will a person die. There are other causes of death than decapitation. Thusly, although decapitation is a sufficient condition for death, it is not a necessary condition for death. As you can see, the notion of sufficient and necessary conditions parallels the notions of modus ponens and modus tollens, respectively. Finally, the fallacy of affirming the consequent is just the confusion of a necessary condition with a sufficient condition, while the fallacy of denying the antecedent is just the confusion of a sufficient condition with a necessary condition. With Salaams S.

In light of the established definitions of these two terms, feel free to correct me here, reasoning is synonymous to logic Noh? and the two are interchangeable terms right? Excellent! To be precise, I would not say that reasoning is synonymous with logic, but I would say that logic is a necessary condition for reasoning. You may perchance, in a sense, equate "reason" (noun) with "logic" as our "innate cognitive faculty". Reasoning is the process itself and reason or logic is the tool. Reasoning can be valid or invalid! Is the same true with logic? Is there such thing as invalid logic? Why? I take there are “logical†rules that govern the making and evaluation of arguments? Are these all agreed (universally)? Well, it is not the process itself (reasoning) that can be valid or invalid, rather it is the product of this process that can be labelled as such. An argument (composed of premises and a conclusion) is the product of reasoning, and it is only arguments that be described as valid or invalid. I do not know what it means to say that "reasoning is valid or invalid", because it is not reasoning itself that is susceptible of validity and invalidity, but the result (i.e. argument) that is valid or invalid. That is to say, if someone says that the reasoning of Naaleeye is invalid, then what they are saying is that his argument is invalid. One cannot say that a given reasoning is invalid in and of itself without scrutinizing the argument. The concepts of validity and invalidity are strictly mathematical because such concepts apply to the form and not the content of the arguments. Moreover, when it is said that an argument is valid, it means that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. In other words, if you accept the premises as true, then you must, of necessity, accept the conclusion as true. With valid arguments, you cannot accept the premises and reject the conclusion. P1. All humans are birds P2. Baashi is a Human C. Therefore, Baashi is a bird [Example 1] The argument above is an instance of a valid argument. It is important to understand that validity is a concept peculiar to deductive arguments. If you accept P1 and P2, then you cannot deny the truth of the conclusion, because the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises; this much is obvious. The argument is valid even though the conclusion is false. P1. Calgary is in Canada P2. Toronto is in Canada C. Therefore, Ottawa is in Canada [Example 2] Though the conclusion of example 2 is true, the argument is, nonetheless, invalid. It is of utmost importance that you do not confuse soundness with validity. This is a rudimentary concept, which, needlesss to say, all students understand. The validity of an argument is mathematical, thusly universal. In mathematical langugage, the validity or invalidity of an argument can be demonstrated through axioms and inference rules. The argument in example 1 is valid, but is unsound. Soundness and Validity are two quite distinct concepts. I think we have established that it is impossible to engage in reasoning without employing logic; nay, it is impossible to reason without being logical. One cannot engage in reasoning if one is not orderly rational and logical. In additon, logical principles and rules are mathematical as they are part of mathematics, and, as a result, objective. P.S. I will not respond to that anecdotic piece lest I become the hostage of my tongue(or rather my keyboard). With Salaams S.

Reasoning is a mental process or the act of using our innate cognitive faculty (reason) to drive a conclusion from certain premise The above-quoted statement is the definition that you have provided for the word "reasoning". Very well. Your definition is sufficient, but I will quote the dictionary defintion just so as to eliminate any possible ambiguites. Reasoning is defined as follows: the use of REASON ; especially : the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of REASON Merriam Webster Dictionary 1.To use the faculty of reason; think logically. 2.To talk or argue logically and persuasively. Dictionary.com You wrote: innate cognitive faculty (reason) What is our innate congnitive faculty? You have the word "reason" in brackets, so our innate cognitive faculty is the use of "reason". This is in accordance with the defintion in lexicons. But what is "reason" itself? Here is yet another definiton: Reason is the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly RATIONAL ways Merriam Webster The capacity for LOGICAL, RATIONAL, and ANALYTIC thought Dictionary.com If someone is reasoning, then he/she is using his/her "innate cognitive faculty" which is reason. A person employs reason if, and only if, the person thinks in a logical and rational way. What does it mean to think in a logical or orderly rational way? Well, logic, a science of the principles of "reasoning", among other things, describes when a person is thinking in a logical and rational way. If you say that Xaskul is employing reason, then you are saying that he is being "rational and logical". Being rational and logical is, simply put, acting in accordance with "Reason" or "logic". It looks like you equating “logic†with standard in one sentence and in the same breath you using “logic†with faculty (ability or human capacity to think) - all in one paragraph!!!! Is logic a method/science to weigh how we reason or is it the act (reasoning) itself? The process of reasoning cannot occur without the use of "our innate cognitive faculty", which is reason, and employing "reason" is thinking in a logical way (defintion). In this sense "Reason" is interchangeable with logic. You cannot "reason" about anything unless you use "your innate cognitive faculty" which is the advancing of rational thoughts. The only way of advancing rational thoughts is by the employment of the principles of logic. Stating that reasoning is the use of reason is circular, and does nothing to explain what is the process of reasoning unless you understand what is "reason" (noun). In addition, camaflouging the word "reasoning" with "cognitive innate faculty" is not helpful unless it is clear what you mean by cognitive innate faculty. However, it is clear that you mean "reason" when you talk about our "cognitive innate faculty"; afterall, you did put "reason" in brackets after the said phrase. Your definition amounts to: reasoning is the use of reason, or reasoning is the use of our innate cognitive faculty. This begs the question because what we are querying about is the nature of this so called innate cognitve faculty. This we know to be reason, which is thinking in a logical and rational way. To think in a logical or rational way is to think in accordance with logic (its principles and consequences). Aristotle is credited of being the one who invented the logic as a method of rigorous analysis of facts. At the risk of flogging a dead horse, Aristotle did not invent the principles of logic. Logic is the science of the principles of reasoning, and Aristotle did not invent the principles of reasoning (e.g. Principle of Non contradiction). Perhaps you can say that Aristotle invented this "science" but he did not, obviously, invent the principles underlying this science. He is, no doubt, credited with inventing the "science of logic", which is the rigorous study of logic, but he did not invent the pillars of logic(principles of reasoning). He merely formalized the principles of reasoning. Many biologists (scientists) credit Anixmander, the ancient greek biologist, for the formalization of biology. Biology is the science of living organisms, their structures etc. Anixmander did not invent living things, which are the the subject matter of biology; he merely invented the "science of living things", which is studying the structure, function, and growth of living things, but he did not invent the actual living organisms. In like manner, Aristotle did not invent the principles of reasoning (logic is the science of the principles of reasoning), rather he just discovered them. Anyone else could have discovered the science of living things (biology) and the science of the principles of reasoning(logic), but no one can invent them. pre-Aristotle layman use their common sense to make sense of their surroundings What is "common sense"? Is it perhaps the "innate cognitive faculty" which humans possess? You wrote that it was "reason", and I am equating "reason" with the employment of the principles of logic. Try to reason and rationalize without using the principles of logic. Give me any example in which you use reason, and I will show you that you are employing the principles of logic . If humans were able to "reason" without using logic, then they would be able to think "illogically" (not employing logic). This is preposterous! If this standard (logic not reasoning as a mental process that all human beings are known to possess) is the yard stick in which all claims or propositions are measured against then that means truth is relative to some standard or convention or point-of-view formulized by Aristotle This would be true if Aristotle invented the principles of logic; however, it is contradictory to assume that triangle had four sides before Aristotle, because three sides and a triangle are, by virtue of the "principle of identity" (A is A) equivalent. The term "three angles" is logically equivalent to Triangle just like four sides is equivalent to square. Therefore, Aristotle only invented the "science of studying the principles of logic" but not the principles of logic themselves. It absolutely nonsensical to say that you can use reason without using logic. I still find it hard to believe that you actually think that it is possible to reason and to rationalize without employing logic by hook or crook. Because I reason and mine encountered these “impregnable walls As the New Yorker Magazine occasional column has it, "Block that metaphor!" P.S. And I thought that Ibn Taymiyyah was ridiculously obstinate and naive. Here you are telling me that reasoning is independent of logic. Walillaahi fii khalqihii shu'uun! With Salaams PK

Baashi:- I will not expend too much energy in addressing the first two parts of your response, but I will state that the delibrate ambguity and incoherence, if you will, was an experiment in rational accomodation. After you intrepreted the original post (OP) in the worst light possible (that some manners of death are a sign of martydom), I replied in kind (list of fruits). Self-assertive is he who employs not the principle of charity in debates. Would you not agree? Waxaan macno badan laheyn baad ku nuuxnuuxsaneeysaa Where we seem to differ is the standard or methodology called logic defined as the science of the formal principles of reasoning. What other standard is there for reasoning other than "logic". What other faculty do we have as humans? When it is said that someone is reasoning, then it means that such a person is thinking logically. In other words, such a person is using the principles of logic. The use of the "innate cognitve faculty" is the employment of logic. It is possible for many people reason (i.e. think logically) without being acquainted with logic(one need not know the difference between modus ponens and modus pollens to reason, but one must know the difference between them if one is to reason aright). The problem that is attendent upon such people is fallacies, errors in reasoning. Firstly, I maintain that logic or rather logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe nor is it a set of rules which govern human behavior. What arguments do you have for this claim? Logic is simply a method or rather science invented by a fallible man, Aristotle to be precise Aristotle did not invent logic or logical principles; instead, he merely formalized them. Do you mean to say that a "bachelor is an unmarried man" was false before Aristotle? I wonder what a person, who lived before Aristolte, would say if I asked him/her " is it the same thing to be burned and not burned". Aristotle, for instance, formalized the principle of non contradiction, but he did not invent it. Are you saying that contradictions were possible before him? This is most absurd. Debaters can simply decide whether logic is the right tool for the subject under discussion (I have metaphysics realm in mind here). Logic is objective in and of itself. I have provided many arguments to this end. Religion only becomes objective after we employ logic, or do we just assume one religion to be correct "right off the bat"? What other tools do you have other than logic? Secondly, I maintain that human reasoning has its limitations. There are areas where our reasoning stops before “impregnable wallsâ€. Because of such constraints, we are left to wrestle with fundamental questions which we have no verifiable answers. How do you know if reason "stops before 'impregnable walls'"? Since you mention the word "verifibale", do you mean to say that we cannot employ logic to anything which is unverifiable or unscientific. This would mean that we cannot know true religion through logic, therefore we must let loose our emotions and heart-felt intuitions? If we can know religion only through emotion, then religon is subjective and relative since emotions are not objective. Is this right? A relativist to the end, indeed! You demanded examples and I shall give you several examples. Corrections are welcomed. Please read my previous post. I neither requested a catalogue of the names of philosophers nor a list of some of thier theories. I had asked you to choose one subject and two possible philosophical positions (e.g. Athiesm vs Theism, Empiricism vs Rationalism, etc.). You seem to be arguing that, for instance, Theism and Atheism are both equally strong and true with respect to logic, and hence, logic is relative. I want you to show this and not merely claim it. Now if you ever had the pleasure of reading the works of these gentlemen, you would have noticed one thing that they have in common and that is they first assume that proposition X is true, and then use that premise (directly or indirectly) to prove that proposition X is true hence the term "circular reasoning" (it is the practice of assuming something in order to prove the very thing that you assumed). Eloquent, persuasive, and consistent in their presentation that they certainly are. Infallible they are not! It is one thing to say that some philosophers argue in a circular manner. It is quite another matter to say that "metaphysics" or philosophy itself is circular? Some philosphers have committed the petitio principii blunder, I agree. However, what arguments do you have that "Metaphysics is ultimately circular"? P.S. Stating that the OP was purposively ambigous is, I hope, enough to dispell the charges of haughtiness. P.P.S. The freind of Allah, Prophet Abraham, peace be upon him, is reported to have had an argument with the Babylonian King, Nimrod. In fact, Nimrod disputed with Abraham about his Lord. Abraham argued that his Lord gave life and took life; however, Nimrod, equivocating on the meaning of taking life and giving life, argued that he could kill some persons and let some others live, thusly "giving life and death". Abraham did not press this point any farther; instead, he argued that his Lord caused the sun to rise from the east, and asked the King to cause the sun to rise from the west. The King became nonplussed and dumbfounded. Fakhr Diin Ar-raazi writes in his tafsiir that it is necessary from an islamic perspective that one concede a trivial objection to advance a strong argument which is not susceptible of superficialties. Let us keep this in mind. With Salaams Sulub (the PK abbr. is, I find, offensive)

Originally posted by CHECKMATE: ^^And yet,you say your NOT here to score POINTS. Job very well done old friend. asxantu You see, good Checkmate, I did not dismiss your comment when I read it. There is what is called " entertaining some proposition ". That does not mean taking it to dinner and a movie. It means simply to consider a proposition without any committment as to its truth or falsity. That I scored some points was a propostion which I was willing to entertain . By perusing my post, I have come up with only possible instance in which my comment could be construed as "scoring points". I made a facetious remark about Baashi being a "Humpty-Dumpty" due to his use of the word "circularity". His "queer" understanding of the word inevitably reminded me of the well-known Humpty Dumpty passage in Lewis Carroll's second Alice book, " Through the Looking Glass ." I am sure you have seen the various film renditions of it. Here it is: "`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!', said Humpty Dumpty `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected. `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.' " Tell me Checkmate, what does Baashi mean by circularity? Could he possibly mean "I do not like it" when he says that something is "circular" just as Humpty Dumpty meant "a nice knock down argument" when he used the word "glory"? With Salaams PK

Smiling @ list of fruits. Very hilarious but no substance! That was the point. I am delighted that you have understood it. Secondly, although bit didactic and below the belt dismissals at times nevertheless the last write-up addressed several pertinent points. Actually, I was merely clarifying your thoughts; consequently, I thought it was necessary that the terms of communication be stipulated, lest you write, inadvertently, in what analytic philosophers call, a "private language". a) the way I structured the argument didn’t conform to your preferred methodology. It is not my methodology but the standard one. In any event, I think I have understood your reconstruction even though it did not accord to any given standard. Still the facts you delineated in your first post and the deliberate but misleading title you have given the thread says nothing about martyrdom I did not explain my rationale for labelling philosophers (or any thinkers) as martyrs. In future posts, I shall not assume anything about the knowledge of my audience, thusly I will explain, with great precision, the titles of my posts. If you really think about it the “martrydom†door is wide open to many professionals who make use of their intellect, sacrifice their time to advance their ideologies irrespective to the odds they face. I have no qualms of labelling a person as a martyr so long as such a person is not concieted about knowledge. Many religous persons are concieted because they think they already know the truth of they want to know. That is to say, the assume certain proposotions to be true without ratiocination and rumination, and they claim that they are in a process of seeking knowledge. Oftentimes, they attribute their cherished axioms to intiutions, feelings, culture, and the whole train irrational dispositions. If you have the intellectual audacity to scrutinize, analyse, penetrate all beliefs objectively (using logic), then you are a martyr because you have sacrificed your heart-felt intuitions(e.g. belief in a pink elephant, or a God that is sitting on a throne), time, and energy. You cannot assume that one belief has more strength than the other (God exists vs God does not exist) because your "intuitions" and emotions tilt you towards one and not the other. I would not call philosophers "Shuhada" merely because they were thinkers; the islamic defintion of a "Shaheed" is quite rigorous and clear. The meaning of a martyr as it is found in most english lexicons is "reportive"; however, this word exacts an "essentialist" and not a reportive definition. rational, reasonable people well versed with the art of logic and deductive reasoning weigh in one single subject and come to divergent positions and at times opposing conclusion. What does that say about logic? A fallible methodology of searching truth perhaps! I would kindly request of you, should you have the ability, to provide me with concrete examples of what you are attempting to advance. In other words, give me an example of a specific subject (God, Facts, Reality, Ethics etc.), and shew me the divergent and opposing conclusions that these philosophers espoused. What are the main arguments for the given subject? Are the arguments equally strong? Glittering generalities have no place in a debate forum. Would you not agree? You must be arguing something along the lines of: If philosophers come to the same conclusion, then logic is universal. However, philosophers have greatly differed on many subjects, and so have not come to the same conclusions, therefore, logic cannot be universal. Now let us employ some basic symbolic logic to this argument. There are two cardinal components to this argument, and we shall call them P and Q P= Philosophers come to the same conclusion Q= Logic is universal If P, then Q (P--->Q) not P (~P) therefore not Q (::~Q) Clarifications: Not P= Philosophers do not come to same conclusion; Not Q= Logic is not universal. This is what mathematicians and logicians call faulty reasoning because you have "denied the antecedent", thusly you have committed a fallacy. Assuming that you are an educated man, I do not think you are actually saying that "logic" (a tool used to analyse arguments, which is composed of self-evident axioms) is relative. In fact, I know that you are saying the opposite of that because if you actually believed that logic was relative then there would not be a debate about anything. Trying to convince me that logic is relative is itself self-defeating. Science, a process of logic(inductive), and mathematics , another process of logic (deductive), would become, quite literally moot. I hope you do not believe that the earth is flat, or that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. We know that the earth is not flat, and we also know that a four hundred pound rock does NOT fall faster than a feather. I think what you are trying to say is that metaphysical reasoning is nowise possible. Some great philosophers have, indeed, argued against any and all types of metaphysical reasonings. In fact, Hume came dangerously close in putting metaphysics, to use Ayn Whitehead's words, "to sleep forever". In response to Hume's attack on philosophy, Kant woke from his "dogmatic slumber". Kant broke, in his Critique of Pure Reason, with a torrent of expostion, the dam that was Hume's argumentation. Perhaps you are not even acquainted with the arguments of Kant and Hume with respect to metaphysics, so what reasons have you for thinking that "metaphysical reasoning" is not possible? As I have explicated in this post, that philosophers come to different conclusions does not thence follow that metaphysics is not possible. Metaphysical postions and stances are not equally strong as some are indeed more potent than others. If you can think of but two postions that are of the equal strength, then, pirthee, do share it with me. Aniga, Xiinfiin el al: To those of you who are dryly righteous without understanding, I will quote the words of the arab poet, Al-Badawi: دع عنك لومي Ùلن يجديك منÙعة Ùمذهبي لست ابغي Ùيه تبديلا لا اقبل الدين Ø­Ùظا عن ائمتكم واترك العقل ماسورا ومغلولا الدين عقلك لا شيء تلقنه بلا دليل تراه النÙس مقبولا كم عائب راح يرمي ذاك زندÙØ© واخر راح يدعو ذاك تضليلا ولم ابال بهم Ùالحق مؤتلق وسو٠اسعى اليه رغم ما قيلا وان اتيت لهم تبغي لما زعموا ادلة ابت الاÙواه تدليلا لا يملكون دليلا ينطقون به Ùاينا كان عند الحق مخذولا؟ ولن ترى لاÙين القول من حجج Ùهل ترى الصدا المسود مصقولا لو قلت(عقل) لقالوا Ùيك زندقة ويوسعونك تاÙينا وتجبيلا ولو تقول سمعنا عن ائمتنا كالوالك المدح تكبيراوتبجيلا With Salaams PK

ههنا تواد الطهارة بكرا ههنا يغصب العÙا٠ويرجم ههنا يصبح الهناء Ùقيدا ههنا تبدل البشاسة بالهم ههنا المال والجمال Ùبع Ù†Ùسك ان تبتغيهما وتقدم ههنا يرتدي البطل ثوب حق ههنا الحق عاريا يستبهم وبكاس الايمان تنهل ÙƒÙرا وبعين اليقين لاتتوسم ههنا الحب ان تشا غير عذري Ùذقه احلاه يا صاح علقم وعلى مذبح اللذاذات ينسى شرع موسى وشرع عيسى بن مريم هذه كعبة يحج اليها كل يوم وليس Ùيها محرم ان اصبت النجاح كادلك الغير وان خبت لم تجد من يرحم لا تنى عاملا زمانك حتى تصل الليل بالنهار وتسام وتمر السنون ÙÙŠ طلب الثروة والجسم دونها يتهدم والهوابيل والقوابيل Ùيها كم اخ ذابح اخاه لدرهم والعذارى يمسين غير عذارى والايامى يجهلن عÙØ© مريم بطر العلم والغنى والتملي من ملذات قادر يتنعم وحديد على حديد يكوم وبذوب القلوب يحمى ويلحم انت عبد وكم لدينا عبيد قدموا طائعين من طر٠اليم In his famous poem about New York (وجه نيويورك), the author of this piece describes the nature of this city. I think he,نسيب عريضة , would apply this poem to Dubai as well. Be that as it may, I am relocating to Sharjah (الشارقة) this summer for good. I plan to spend many days, nay, months in Dubai.

Baashi:- Let me preface my "reconstruction" of your argument by expounding the ultimate purpose and aim of rational debates. You seem to hold the view that reasoning or argumentation is save a strategem, a trick, a matter of scoring points, a game which is to be "won"; however, this perception could not have been farther from reality. Argumentation is not merely an art where you disrobe your opponent so that the he/she shivers as a result of the consequent nakedness. It is not about paralyzing your opponent with logical artillery, far from it. In fact, proper discussions are naked of these qualites. In an argument or a debate, I think that it is essential that you aim for attaining the truth of the matter, and not merely aim for winning the debate, impressing your opponent, or some such silly thing. If I make an error in my ratiocination, then I will fain accept it, because I am no "sophist". In a number of places, Plato distinguishes between what is called dialectic and eristic . Dialectic is a cooperative effort among disputants to reach the truth. Eristic is not an attempt to reach the truth but, rather, an attempt to score points off an opponent. The Sophists, of course, engage in eristic, but philosophers engage in the dialectic. I hope you do not regard our discussions as attempts at scoring points or as "impressive to-the-point comebacks". We are, I imagine, both on a quest to find the truth, so it shall remain. Argument: 1. Contracting contagious deceases (syphilis, cold, AIDS, etc). 2. Shear (and unnecessary) negligence of one’s wellbeing or health. 3. Accidents. 4. Facing justice (Murderer who killed his wife, for instance). 5. Fascist sympathizers. That is not an argument at all. An argument is a series of sentences or premises which support another premise or sentence called the conclusion. This list which you have penned is not an argument anymore than the following list is an argument: 1. Apple 2. Banana 3. Grapes 4. Orange 5. Strawberry You have presented a list of the causes of deaths, and I have listed a catalogue of fruits. I have not, however, provided any argument. Assertion #1 Folks who experience 1 through 5 DO NOT rise to “martyrs of thought†level. You seem to have a unique albiet obfuscating manner of "reconstructing an argument". I shan't insist on technicalities as I have knowledge that you labour under a handicap (you are not a logician) whenever you attempt to formally reconstruct an argument. An assertion is, I am sure you will admit, a claim (conclusion), so there must be other propostions (premises) that support this assertion, claim, or conclusion. My most charitable intrepretation of your "reconstruction" (if I can call it that) is as follows 1. Philosophers who die violent deaths are martyrs 2. But there is no difference between philosophers who die violent deaths and non philosophers Therefore 3. Dying a violent death does not make philosophers martyrs This is a reductio ad absurdum which is a method of counter-argument in which one assumes a certain premise to be true. However, assuming the said propostion to be true leads to an absurdity and untenability; in light of this, one proceeds to reject such a premise because one has "reduced it to absurdity". A basic example of such an argument would be: Durmad : I am a skeptic, and as such I believe that we can never know if any proposition is true Afyuub : Really? If we can never know the truth of any propositon, then we cannot know the truth of the propostion that we can never know anything (reductio). But if you can know that "you can never know the truth of a propostion", then you know the truth of a proposotion, namely, "that you can never know the truth of a propositon". Therefore (ad absurdum), your statement is contradictory. Let me re-write, again, with much charity and clarity, your reductio: Mutakallim : Philosophers are martyrs because they have died horrible deaths. Baashi : Really? If philosophers are martyrs because they died horrible deaths, then so is everyone who dies a horrible death (reductio). But it is not true that everyone who dies a horrible death is a martyr. Therefore, (ad absurdum), philosophers cannot be martyrs merely because they have died horrible deaths. Now, I suppose this is what you meant by your post; however, judging by your newfangled neologism, it is quite plausible that you have something else in mind. I must say that your reductio would be credible if, and only if, I argued in the afore-mentioned manner. Further, though this might hit you like a ton of bricks, I did not make such an argument at all. In fact, in my first post, I did not argue anything at all. Hence, since my first post contained no argument, you saw it necessary to construct a puppet "arguer" and a straw man argument. Although you have mercilessly burned the strawman , I am still standing unscathed, good Baashi. Sorry to disappoint you. I think you were so fixated on the caption of this thread to the extent that you thought it was part of some argument. In the orginal post, there was no argument (remember what an "argument" is), however, there were facts (i.e. how each philosopher died). I imagine you will retort, "What the hell does the title of the thread have to do with the post? Why not call the thread "How philosophers died? What has martyrdom to do with car accidents and suicides?". I entirely concur that such a query is germane. I also believe that it is contributing to a fundemental source of confusion in this thread. The title of the thread was no accident, good Baashi, as I willfully wrote it. Now you see, philosophers were martyrs of sorts not because they died in car accidents, not because they committed suicide, not because they were killed by lesser peoples; instead, they were martyrs because they "sacrificed" their lives, their time, their intellect to one principle, to wit, that only those propostions, those beliefs, those statements, which conformed to reason are to be espoused as true. Everything else must be committed, as Hume said, to the flames, as they are nought but sophistry and illusion! It is rather conspicuous that there is no uniformity in the thought of philosophers. Do you know why? Should you argue once more that logic is relative because philosophers come to different conclusions, then I will have to answer this silly argument with a joke. Do you not see anything amiss in arguing in such a fashion? I promise I’ll be there and I sure will give a run for your preferred subject And I promise that you shall recieve a most handsome benefit. P.S. I was going to respond to all your posts in this thread, but I have noticed that NGONGE has, with admirable cogency, confuted most of your "circular" claims. I find it ironic that you accuse philosophers of "circularity" when it is the substructure of your argument. Perhaps you are not using the word "circularity" as it is used by logicians and philosophers. This makes me wonder whether you are not a Humpty-dumpty. With Salaams PK

OG_Girl:- I see you have managed to create quite a ruckus. Naughty! Your arguments are not susceptible of refutation, thusly the riff-raff of the SOL fora are attacking your person. While I believe you have some good "comeback" insults of your own, I beseech you not to reply in kind. Should you stoop to thier level of disparagments and ad hominems, then they will beat you by experience.Some folks are, naturally, better adapted to living in the lower spheres of discussion, so their experience will, indubitably, give them the edge. On second thought, I imagine you have already "washed your hands" of this, so I need not at all dispense advice. With Salaams PK P.S. As regards this thread, it is nothing save a storm in a teacup.

MsWord:- Please revise and edit your post as it thoroughly incoherent. Thank you. With Salaams PK P.S. Please re-read my posts. I promise you will not regret it.

Originally posted by Baashi: Excluding Socrates here is the logic of Mutakalims post: folks whose deaths are result of car accidents, suicides, and natural deaths (illness) = Martyrs. Awesome! That is a good strawman, but no more!

NGONGE:- We’re all philosophers in our very own unique way. Granted, we’re not as adept at the “art†as the heavyweights mentioned above, however we all (whether we like it or not) use logic and reason to arrive at conclusions to the most basic of thoughts. Hear, Hear! “ ours is not to reason why� People of many creeds and sects would agree to this statement, because they cannot answer the "whys" at all. For instance, many christian theologians and philosophers attempted to build a logical fortress around their cardinal tenets. Logic, they thought, was a "delicous" fruit (grapes). However, the task of substantiating christian tenets with logic proved unsuccessful; dare I say impossible. Thusly, some renown theologians stipulated, against their better judgement, that, "logic" was not essential aught. In fact, one of them declares, "credo quia absurdum" -- I believe because it is absurd. This is a classic example of "sour grapes" (pace Aesop). Nomads The truth, good Nomads, ought not to be assumed in any fashion. A cardinal difference between animals and vegetables is locomotion; in like manner, the cardinal difference between humans and animals is "reason". Questions are the essence of logic. Oh, how true are Kipling's words: I keep six honest serving men They taught me all I knew; Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who. Or as Ibn Rushd says, "question, or die!" اسئل او مت. A fair commination, indeed.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: A gracious exit of this bog. [/QB] Alahayoow nimaan wax ogeeyn ha cadaabin

MsWord:- I didn't mean to be insulting and for that I apologize. No offense taken. Philosophers (except Socrates) could find "The truth" they search for in the Quran Sure. I agree. The Quran is true, so if the philosophers (i.e. modern, contemporary) perused it, then they would have found the truth therein. This is all fine and dandy, however, I would like to know how you formulated your premise, namely, that "the Quran is true". I know (contrast: believe, have faith) that it is true, but I will not state, as religous folks, that "the Quran is true, because in the Quran, Allah says that it is true". This amounts to a blatant petitio principi (begging the question). A Christian could equally retort, "the Bible is true and unchanged, because in the Bible it says that it is true and unchanged". The quibble about Socrates was, as it were, a negligible contention in this discussion. Your belief that logic is a belief is what I find disturbing. You believe that logic is a belief, yet you cannot demonstrate this. I must inform you that simply repeating the phrase that "logic is a belief" will not make it true anymore than repeating the phrase "Whales are a kind of fish" will make it true. The fact remains that neither is logic a belief nor is a whale (a mammal) a fish. I have provided you with many examples of "first principles" (PNC, Principle of Non Contradiction; PI, principle of idenity etc.) which demonstrate that logic is, indeed, objective. Perhaps you can call the principles of logic "objective beliefs", because no sane person can deny thier truth(see Ibn Sina's example of flogging and burning). However, as Berkely admonishes us, we must talk with the vulgar but think with the intelligent. In other words, in the same way that people describe the "rising of the Sun" and the "setting of the Sun" (science tells us that the sun neither sets nor rises) we can describe logic as "objective beliefs". Nevertheless, there no rising, no setting, and no belief. To put it less cheekily, the Sun does not set or rise (Earth rotates on its axis), and logical principles are not beliefs (a fact is not a belief). I'm speaking, of course, from the point of view of a Muslim and I understand that you might feel inclined to disagree because my "argument" which really is rather an opinion Heavens! I was speaking of the islamic view as well; afterall, I am a Muslim! Our views are, nonetheless, mutually exclusive, so only one of us is right. I have reasons (I can support my conceptions) for being right. Do you? Clearly, as you can see I rely on my faith whilst you rely on logic so lets just agree to disagree and live happily ever after. Why choose one faith over another? For instance, suppose you have three options: 1. Faith in Islam 2. Faith in Christianity 3. Faith in Buddhism Would it be prudent if I arbitrarily chose one faith over the other(simply wishing that my chosen faith is the correct one). I think that would be a most foolish decision given that your life, and quite possibly, eternal damnation and salvation hang in the balance. So it would be a good bet, to espouse that religion which is the most rational and logical. Do you not agree? Logic is the tool wherewith we find the truth, and intrepret the truth. Is there anything that I could possibly say that will change your belief that "logic is a belief", or is there nothing that I can say that will change your opinion. Why have I failed to convince you through argument? Oh well, the fact that an argument fails to convince is no reason to think it is a bad argument. Samuel Johnson is reported to have presented an argument to someone who failed to consent to the conclusion. And Johnson finally said, "Sir, I have given you an argument. I cannot give you intelligence". If an argument fails to convince that may show something about the argument, but it also may show something about the audience for the argument. With Salaams PK

قال :" السماء كئيبة " Ùˆ تجهما قلت : ابتسم يكÙÙŠ التجهم ÙÙŠ السما قال : الصّÙبا ولى ! Ùقلت له : ابتسم لن يرجع الأسÙ٠الصبا المتصرما قال : التي كانت سمائي ÙÙŠ الهوى صارت لنÙسي ÙÙŠ الغرام جهنما خانت عهودي بعدما ملكتها قلبي ØŒ Ùكي٠أطيق أن أتبسما ! قلت : ابتسم Ùˆ اطرب Ùلو قارنتها قضّيت عمرك كله متألما قال : التجارة ÙÙŠ صراع٠هائل٠مثل المساÙر كاد يقتله الظما أو غادة مسلولة محتاجة٠لدم٠، وتنÙØ« كلما لهثت دما قلت : ابتسم ما أنت جالب دائها Ùˆ Ø´Ùائها ØŒ Ùإذا ابتسمت Ùربما أيكون غيرك مجرماً Ùˆ تبيت ÙÙŠ وجل٠كأنك صرت أنت المجرما قال : العدى حولي علت صيحاتهم أأسَرّ Ùˆ الأعداء حولي ÙÙŠ الحمى ØŸ قلت : ابتسم ØŒ لم يطلبوك بذمّهم لو لم تكن منهم أجل Ùˆ أعظما قال : المواسم قد بدت أعلامها Ùˆ تعرّضَت لي ÙÙŠ الملابس Ùˆ الدمى Ùˆ علي للأحباب Ùرضٌ لازم لكن ÙƒÙÙŠ ليس تملك درهما قلت : ابتسم ØŒ يكÙيك أنك لم تزل حياً ØŒ Ùˆ لست من الأحبة معدما قال : الليالي جرعتني علقماً قلت : ابتسم Ùˆ لئن جرعت العلقما Ùلعل غيرك إن رآك مرنماً طرح الكآبة جانباً Ùˆ ترنما أتراك تغنم بالتبرم درهما أم أنت تخسر بالبشاشة مغنما ØŸ يا صاح٠، لا خطرٌ على Ø´Ùتيك أن تتثلما ØŒ Ùˆ الوجه أن يتحطما Ùاضحك Ùإن الشهب تضحك Ùˆ الدجى متلاطمٌ ØŒ Ùˆ لذا نحب الأنجما قال البشاشة ليس تسعد كائناً يأتي إلى الدنيا Ùˆ يذهب مرغما قلت : ابتسم ما دام بينك Ùˆ الردى شبرٌ ØŒ Ùإنك بعد٠لن تتبسما Source

MsWord:- I have the feeling that you are protecting a closely and dearly held theory which you are putting forth, and which I am questioning. As Wittgenstein would have put it, you are in the "grip" of a theory. As a consequence, you tend to forget that this is supposed to be a detached discussion, and when you read an objection to your view you have never encountered, it tends to make you forget the context, and you become insulting. Since this seems to be a dearly held view on your part, I understand. However, should you wish to continue to discuss and, as a result, learn, you should recollect yourself. Before I address your statements, I think it is necessary that I point out the guidelines of argumentation. You have to distinguish between the arguer and the argument. MsWord, I assure you, I am NOT the argument. Barney : Timothy, that 1+1=2 (or that any arithmetic proposition is true) is not my opinion, because the Peano Postulates (argument) prove it. Timothy Monster : Well, I can prove that you are a fat, ugly, purple dinosaur, but this does not mean that it is true. Barney : But that 1+1=2 or that 2+3=5 can be shown through a valid deduction (All As are Bs, All Bs are Cs, therefore, All As are Cs). Timothy Monster : No wonder most dinosaurs are extinct. I do not care to listen to people who have brain problems. Anyways, that 1+1=2 is your belief. Barney : Ugh! What have I done to deserve this? You see, good MsWord, Timothy did not attack the argument; instead, he attacked the "arguer", poor Barney. This is an ad hominem fallacy. Thusly, do not vaccilate to attack the argument, because the argument, unlike the arguer, is not possessed of sentiment. It's apparant to me atleast that you're in dire need of reading glasses See above . Aside: I recently went to the optometrist. She was such a nice lady. for your poor vision have led me to be repetitious as a rewind button See above. I never made the claim that Socrates followed some sort of revealed knowledge Very well. Though you did not make the explicit claim that Socrates adhered to scriptural revelation, this inference was a necessary consequence of your argument. If this supposed argument was arguing for anything it would be in my opinion, though not necessarily yours since "logic and reason" have quite addled your brain Regarding the Ad hominem, see above. Note: Logic is not an opinion. Either MsWord is a female or MsWord is not a female. MsWord cannot both be a female and not a female at the same time and in the same respect (contradiction). This axiom, The Principle of Non-Contradiction, is an instance what Aristotle called the "First Principles". that the truth these martyrs of thought searched for they could of found it in the Quran This is nice to know. Hopefully, you are going somewhere with this. which I'm sure you were once familiar with Why is it that you prefer to talk about me rather than about the arguments being made? Forget about me and answer the argument. the "except" quite shockingly meaning something else in this context, that Socrates is older than the Quran thus He could of found what he searched for in another "Kutab" per se To quote the 1931 song, "I surrender dear". I have no clue as to what you are trying to say. If you are suggesting that there is a possibility that Socrates was acquainted with some other holy scripture, then I do not disagree. It is possible that Socrates followed some scriptural revelation (Quran, Injeel, Tawarah, etc.). There are "possible" explanations for everything, and insofar as the explanation is not "impossible", then it is possible. An explantaion of something is only impossible when there is no "logical problem". It is possible that Socrates followed a scripture of revelation; it is also possible that I may fly (without the aid of a flying mechanism). Possibility is not probability. In modal logic, an explantation for something is possible inasmuch as it is not illogical. But so what? though you "very much doubt that there was any reliable scripture of revelation at the time of Socrates" thus disagreeing with my point of view, the burden of proof now rests on your shoulders. So is it your position that you are agnostic about this matter? That is to say, you do not know whether or not Socrates followed a scriptural revelation. I cannot conclusively and defintively say that Socrates did or did not follow some book or another. What I can say though is that, Socrates was a "skeptical rationalist". The exact and actual beliefs of Socrates is a matter of scholarly debate. Whether he followed a scripture or not is neither enlightening nor intriguing, but his method of enquiry (his method of forming beliefs), the so-called Socratic Method, (review the Platonic Dialogues and Xenophan's works) was founded in logical argumentation. As I've wrote in the above quoted statement; whether you disagree with me or not reason/logic are forms of belief since one places confidence and trust in them. I do not have "faith" about the axioms of Logic, but I have knowledge that they are true. For instance, if your freind tells you that your brother has taken your car keys, then you can either believe (have faith) and have confidence in your freind's statement or you can withhold belief. However, if your brother had told you that he was going to take your keys and you had seen him take your keys, then you know that your brother took your keys. Where there is knowledge, there is no faith. Now you see, I know that the axioms of logic are true by neccessity, because thier negation results in a contradiction. That a brother is a male sibling or that a bachelor is an unmarried man is true, as Libniez would say, in all possible worlds. Axioms, (logical, metaphysical, or epistimelogical) are true, self-evident, and neccessary even though they are "unproven". Suffice it to say, an axiom is an axiom by virtue of its, to use Ibn Sina's words, "unprovable necessity". Ibn Sina(Avicenna), in fact, writes in his Mubhathat that, those who deny "first principles" (al-Badihiyyat, al-awaliyat) should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. Don't you think so? Philosophers, these "martyrs", switched beliefs and simply use one to judge another Would I see you expound in which manner logic is a belief. At the risk of sounding redundant, the axioms of logic, though unproven, are true by necessity, because their falsity is inconcievable. In other words, there is a necessary justification for accepting these principles, namely, the falsity of thier negation. For instance, if I point to a white soccer ball, and I say, "the soccer ball is white", then what I am in effect proposing is that its negation (the soccer ball is not white) is false. If you affirm any given proposition (the ball is white) then you are saying that its negation (the soccer ball is not white) is false. Now, read very carefully, because if you are able to refute this premise, then I will concede the debate, "first principles are necessarily true". You need but provide me with one example in which my premise does not hold; if you are able to do so, then I will accept logic as a belief. Of course, some of the vulgar people use " Godel's Theorem of Incompleteness " to show that the "first principles" are incorrect and, as a result, unjustified . Unfortunately, when they do this they ineluctably engage in a circular and counter-intuitive enterprise. The "first principles" are true, even if unproved. If one denies their correctness because of Godel's Theorem, there is a clear circularity (for Godel obviously used the first principles of logic in his demonstration, so how can they be incorrect if the proof of their incorrectness depends on their correctness?). So much for sophistry. if I were to guess and use you as an example, at one time in your life you have had confidence and complete trust in faith and then later in your life you've placed your trust and confidence in Logic. You just switched beliefs. You are correct about one thing. In my salad days, I espoused many a false belief, because I had faith. Unicorns, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, were, I fancied, real entitites suseceptible of extension and "reference" (Frege sense/reference distinction); however, now I know that my belief in some such things were false and unjustified. I do not believe in anything unless I am justified in doing so (i.e. I have logical reasons). Why am I justified in employing the axioms of logic? I am justified because i) infinite regression of systems is not possible, ii) the principles are not susceptible of falsity, iii)the veracity of such principles can be attained through a priori and a posteriori means. Thus far reason, I'm guessing, hasn't deemed one true or has it? Yes, reason has deemed one true by virtue of its necessity; the name Unmoved Mover comes to mind. I suppose some Sikhs and some Muslims of the same Punjabi stock would tell you otherwise, because for them, faith is, well, the knowledge that passeth the understanding. Ah, I just grimace when I read or hear such statements. With Salaams PK

Sophist wrote: Perhaps you were ought to say that TRUTH is objective and universal but reason is subjective, one reasons in a certain way to reach certitude (subjectively that is); but whether we think or not reality will never be altered. Reason is subjective say you? Oh well, I once found sophistry refreshing, but no more! Now you see, obfuscations, and indeed deceptions, inevitably arise when there is no restriction on equivocation . I have not the slightest inkling as to what you mean by the word "reason"; however, should you mean by it the employment of logical principles to statements, then it is not "subjective". P.S. One cannot the change the meaning of a word at will. Words are not magic.

Hah! I see that many Nomads have been drowned by the orginal post; NGONGE, How heinous a man is he! Such swim-or-sink affairs are not to be attempted by all. Nomads needs must chuckle rather than choke, swim rather than sink, in such waters. Needless to say, those who cannot swim are possesed of sentiment and not of skill. With Salaams PK

من حماسيات عنترة العبسي , الÙارس المشهور. قال يتوعد النعمان بن المنذر ملك العرب ويÙتخر بقومه لا يـحمل٠الحقد من تعلو به الرتب٠ولا يـنال العÙلى من طبعه الغضب لـله درٌ بـني عـبس لـقد نسلوا مـن الأكـارم ما قد تنسل٠العرب٠قـد كنت٠Ùيما مضى أرعى جمالهم والـيوم أحـمي حماهم كلما Ù†Ùكبوا لـئن يـعيبوا سوادي Ùهو لي نسبٌ يـوم الـنزال إذا ما Ùاتني النسب ان كـنت تـعلم يا Ù†Ùعمان أنّ يدي ـصـيرةٌ عَـنكَ Ùـالأيام٠تـنقلب ان الأÙـاعي وان لانَـت ملامسها عـند الـتقلب Ùـي أنيابها العطب الـيوم تـعلم يـا نـعمان أي Ùتى يـلقى أخاك الذي قد غرَّة العصب٠Ùـتى يخوض غمارَ الحرب Ù…Ùبتسماً ويـنثني وسـنان٠الرّÙمح مختضب٠ان سـلَّ صـارمه سالت مضاربÙÙ‡ وأشـرق الجوّ٠وانشقت له الحÙجب٠والـخيل٠تـشهد٠لـي أنـي أكÙكها والـطعن٠مـثل شرار النار يلتهب اذا الـتقيت٠الأعـادي يَوم معركة٠تـركت٠جـمعهم٠الـمغرور ÙŠÙنتهب٠لـيَ الـنÙوس وللطير اللحوÙÙ… ولل وحـش الـعظام٠ولـلخيالة السلب٠لا أبـعد الله عـن عـيني غطارÙةً انـساً اذا نـزلوا جـنّاً ØŒ اذا ركبوا أسـود غـاب ولـكن لا نيوب لهم الا الأسـنّـة والـهندية الـقضب تـعدو بـهم أعـوجياتٌ مـضمرةٌ مـثل السراحين ÙÙŠ أعناقها القبب مـازلت٠ألقى صدور الخيل مندÙقاً بـالطعن حتى يضج السّرج٠واللبب ÙـالعÙمي لو كان ÙÙŠ أجÙانهم نظروا والخÙرس لو كان ÙÙŠ Ø£Ùواههم خطبوا والـنقع يوم طراد٠الخيل يشهد٠لي والضرب والطعن والأقلام والكتب Source

Belated though it is, Happy Birthday MsWord.

this is not a symposium in which you pin point the weakness' in my "argument" or lack of This is not the Poetry forum it is the Debate forum. Do you not agree? I just found it amusing that you considered these men who have supposedly boldy gone where no men have gone before, to be martyrs. You found it amusing? That is nice. Your appeal to ridicule(a fallacy) hardly proves a point. The point is that men who assume, without justification, the truth or falsity of a proposition are intellectual cowards. Those who do not make presuppostions are martyrs of thought. I do not need to presuppose the truth of any statement. Why would I for Heaven's sake? The principle of bivalence, an axiom of logic, states that propositions are either true or false. For instance, it is the case that MsWord is nineteen years old, or it is not the case that MsWord is nineteen years old; I think you would agree that the statement "MsWord is nineteen years old" is either true or false. Further, I can either know whether all statements (category) are true/false or I cannot. However, I know statements that are true and others that are false. Therefore, I can know whether statements are true or false( a disjunctive syllogism , either p or q, not p, therefore q). The afore-mentioned philosophers are martyrs because they did not presuppose the truth or falsity of any statement. I think I have shown you already that a non sequitur results if you claim that a corrolary exists between the method of logic and logical errors. You would of have noticed I never, if you had clearly read the above quoted statement, made the claim that Socrates followed some sort of revealed knowledge which leads me to question how you come up with the premises and conclusion I was supposedly arguing for? I was wondering whether you thought that any of what you have just written is true, or whether you happen to care whether it is. Of course, since a sentence has to have meaning in order to be true, that is a prior question, and concerns what it is you think is true if you do think it is true. But never mind that for now, just address yourself to my question whether you think that any of what you wrote is true, and whether you care. You wrote, " 'the truth' these philosophers blindly searched for all of their natural life, except for Socretes though I'm sure there was some type of a Kutab at his time, they could of found it in the Quran". You see, in any given argument there are necessary inferences between premises. Although there is no discernible argument on your part, you are still making a claim. I am in a charitable mood, as often I am, so I will argue for you. I will use your words to illustrate my point:- 1. These Philosophers (namely the ones mentioned in the original post) blindly searched for the truth. 2. Except Socrates (which means that Socrates did not blindly search for the truth; the "except" cannot mean anything else in this context) 3. Though I am sure there was some sort of Kutub at his (Socrates) time. Therefore, 4. Socrates followed some Kitab or Kutub of his time (this is a necessary inference in logic, because mentioning that there was a Kitab at the time of Socrates has no relevance unless you mean to say that he "followed the Kitab". To employ the old chestnut example, if someone writes: 1. Socrates is a man 2. All men are mortal So what? What is the point of mentioning that all men are mortal, or that Socrates is a man for that matter? Clearly, there is a missing premise, viz., the conclusion, which is 3. Socrates is mortal. You did not mention your conclusion in your "argument", but it can be deduced therefrom. I am not sure if it was ignorance or laziness that prevented you from presenting a structured argument, but I must exclaim, as Philo (the character of one of Hume's Dialogues), "Argue, God dammit!" Though your argument is unsound (i.e. your premises are false), your argument is valid (the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises)Now, you see, it is up to you to show that your premises are acceptable. Socrates was not only prosecuted for "impiety" but also because of his political belief which oppossed the Democratic regime at time, basically an act of treason. Heh. You remind me of the dutch boy and the leaky dyke. Where holes appear, you stick your fingers in to stop the leak. But pretty soon, you will run out of fingers. This misunderstanding is widespread amongst beginners in philosophy. If you have read the Apology, (Socrates' defense) Crito, (on civil disobedience) the Euthyphro(on the relation between religon and morality) , and first part of the Meno , then you will find that it was indeed impiety (corrupting the young, challenging the established concepts of God, etc.) that led to the execution of Socrates. In law, treason (classic notion) is a crime of disloyalty to one's country. Of course, I will not get into the various conceptions of treason and the different types of treason, because it is not the topic of discussion herein. However, you must make the crucial distinction that if someone disobeys any given law, then you cannot label such a person as treasonous. I suppose you can argue that if Socrates undermined the beliefs of the state (the established Gods etc.), then he was a "traitor" or a treasonous person. But that is simply wrong because it does not follow that if I disobey a law (i.e. If I go on a killing rampage), that I am treasonous. I might be charged with murder, an impious act , but I am not guilty of treason. Socrates was in fact warned to stop his exercise before the charge of impiety was levelled against him. He refused. Would you care to give examples (with references) of Socrates "political beliefs" that he was charged for? This would not only be a revelation to me, but to the entire English-speaking philosophical world. So, you can understand with what interest I await your explanation. Please hurry! So then Aristotle was a "immoral" fulay No. Well, I suppose you are familiar with the different theories of Ethics, so it is no secret that Aristotle espoused a different notion of ethics and morality. The master of those who know , Aristotle, disagreed with his teacher Plato. After many of the lumpen masses, asked Aristotle why he disagreed with some the concepts held by Plato he said, Dear is Plato; dearer still is truth. Oh and BTW, it's not Fadeism but Fideism, meaning reliance on faith alone rather than scientific reasoning or philosophy in questions of religion. You should read before you reap. I thought I quoted you as writing "Fadeism", but it is quite possible that I am a foolish old man. In any event, why not accept a statement based on its "merits" instead of just having faith that it is true? Philosophy whether you disagree with me or not is a form of a belief for it is a mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another, in my case the "other" being Allah and his Kutab's whilst for a philosopher it's reason You are gravely mistaken, good Ms Word. I do not have faith in reason (whatever that means). Logic, for instance, is a method of analysing arguments and deciding whether a particular argument is good or bad, sound or unsound, valid or invalid, so it is by means of it (logic) that we either come to know the truth (God exists) or falsity (Santa Claus exists)of statements. You see, there are a great many Dieties in this world, and the only way we can ascertain the "true" one is by employing our reason. Why not have faith that God is omnipotent, so God incarnated himself in Jesus. I do not accept this because it is not logical. I wonder why you do not accept the concept of "trinity". Let me hazard a guess, you have "faith" that notion of trinity is false. Give me a break! Of course, many people have beliefs that are clearly false, because they accept it on faith. You will not find philosophers or scientists having faith, holding hands, and singing hymns, for instance, that "Gravity is real". Do you know why? Intellectuals rationalize about thier beliefs to ascertain whether their beleif is true or false. I know reason is right (it is not a matter of faith), because it cannot be false. I know immediately that, for example, the sentence "something cannot be pink and not pink at the same time and in the same respect", I know this necessarily, it is false for this to be true (contradiction). That is to say, I do not wishfully think that logic is true, rather it is true necessarily because I experience a mental contradiction when I suppose it to be false. how can they judge, and when they do judge discredit and dismiss, or try to justify my Belief by using their belief, reason? Pray tell also, what makes their form of belief truer than mine? Reason is not a belief anymore than a cat is a potato. Where on earth did you get this idea from? Are you saying that a triangle has three sides is a belief? It is a fact, because of the semantical and logical relation between "three sides" and a "triangle". I imagine you agree with Kierkegaard when he says that not only does faith not require reasons, but that it would not be faith if it had reasons. I always wonder whether this is not like fable of The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop . You remember how the fox very much wanted the bunches of grapes hanging over his head, and kept leaping up to get at them, but kept failing to get even one grape. Finally, the fox told himself that the grapes were probably sour and that he really did not want them anyway. That is where the expression, "sour grapes" comes from. I hope you see the knot, good MsWord. With Salaams PK

MsWord:- It's sad and quite ironic that "the truth" these philosophers blindly searched for all of their natural life I think it would be inaccurate to say that these chaps blindly searched for the truth. Granted, some of them have made errors in their ratiocination, but that is hardly a reason for disrepute. There is a famous arabic aphorism that says "men of Reason even if they be wrong are better than men of dogma even if they be right" Socretes though I'm sure there was some type of a Kutab at his time I very much doubt that there was any reliable scripture of revelation at the time of Socrates. Although you have only made a claim, you have provided no argument. I suppose what you are trying to argue is that 1. Socrates was not an apostate, 2. There was a Kitab at him time, therefore 3. Socrates followed the Kitab of his time. That, good Ms, is an invalid argument. An argument is valid if, and only if, the truth of the conclusion necessarily follows from the truth of the premises. It is an error of reasoning to "affirm the consequent", because there is between the premises, what Russel called a "logical vaccuum". The Truth ought to be derived by using reason and logic rather than fadeism nor revealed knowledge such as The Quran... a grave mistake, I'm sure they later whilst in their grave, painfully regreted Are you saying that people should assume the Quran to be true? Why should I assume the Quran to be true? I can just as equally assume the Bible to be true? But, I am not in the buiseness of making assumptions. fadeism Sorry, I could not find this word in my dictionary. Do you perhaps mean fatalism, but then what has fatalism got to do with anything? Oh and BTW, Wasn't Socertes, after he was convicted of treason, forced to drink the hemlock whilst he was still incarcerated rather than voluntarily? Socrates was convicted on the charge of impiety not treason. Though he had an oppurtunity to escape and avoid drinking the hemlock, Socrates thought it was immoral for him to do so. Aristotle, on the other hand, was accused of the same charge that lead to the conviction and execution of Socrates. However, Aristolte fled Athens and declared that he would not let the Athenians " sin twice against philosophy". Classique:- Normal endings for the western philosophers, as a reason for being lost & misguided and always following their minds in everything. Your argument is of the self-same structure as that of Ms. You are either saying that Western philosophers died horrible deaths (conclusion), because they were misguided (premise)- of course there is a "missing premise", but your argument is fallacious just the same- or you are arguing that Western philosophers are disbelievers (conclusion), so they died in an undesirable fashion (premise). That seems to be the most charitable interpretation of your argument. All in all, I think NGONGE has explained the significance of the lives of these men notwithstanding their unnatrual deaths. "One has to question, once in one's his life, one's most cherished beliefs and axioms"; one must subponea as Descartes wrote in The Principles , all beliefs before the judgement seat of reason. With Salaams PK

~~* Wisdom begins in wonder. - Socrates *~~ . . . Aude Sapere ~*~ Dare to Know