Philosophy: For the thinkers, i would like us to discuss socrates, pluto.

[FirstLady_Somalia]

Wazup Yall, Since i was introduced 2 years ago in my senior here in highschool. I was very facinated by the philosopy. I accually enjoyed the book "Sophies world". I only read one of the editions. I want to read more of it. It is really great because it makes u think of the world. Philosophers were in the old days queens and kings right hand, they were well respected, they only got paid just to think. I liked socrates point view he said i really don't know the exact qoute but it said " one doesn't know nothing because if you say you do you stop to search for more, but if u say you don't know anything you keep serching. Maybe we se something great and our perception says this is great if we settle for that we might not find something better.

 

I hope there are other lovers of philosophy and people who want to think interestingly. I will go back to the book find my most intereting passages. In the mean time..research socrates and pluto, they might make u think little smarter..lol.

 

holla back!

[Liqaye]

I thought that people would jump at this topic....

Plato was a precursor to the fascistic coception of universal morality i mean with his definition of humanity in to those that having greater abilities and therefore must be seperated from others that are not so well endowed, a tiered socity that would create and maintain and ideal republic plse.

 

the more i need philosophy the more i think that at best it is an attempt to understand his plan or at worst an attempt to quantify and then put him outside the equation.

God might is dead, that is what a philosopher had to say on the subject(nietzche)

[FirstLady_Somalia]

I agree with the Ogun, I thought that this topic was very interesting....but i think alot of people don't know what philosophy is or all the philosophers thoughts. If me and you help can tell them little about who they are and make and open a discussion, I think there would be more people taking a part in it. Again we both live the northamerica so we had chance to learn....holla back aiight

[mahadi]

When you speak of philosphy, do you have any particular school of thought. Or just the work done by Plato or Socrates.

 

I think philosphy is interesting, but I am wary of it because it is not mine. In the west we are talk that Greek civilization is the birthplace of Western thought, but we are not people of the "west", but the "east." For example the concept of a universal morality, for me morality is a product of circumstances. For example, I live a very comfortable life, so it would not be moral for me to kill someone at the supermarket over a loaf of bread, but if the circumstances are different this might be moral.

 

I guess my point is that philosphy is a product of many factors, and doesn't yield universal truths. In fact, some of the greatest philosphers of our time were instrumental in justifiying such things as the trans-atlantic slave trade.

 

But I think all discussion is good, so if you suggest a book or article I will read it and share my thoughts.

 

Salam

[Liqaye]

Yea, this will get intreasting as we go along....

I dis-agree with bro mahadi that the idea of universal morality is based on how the enviroment moulds the individuals conception of morality, but i must add that as in everything that faces a human this must remain an equivocal statement, using mahadi's idea we can continue to argue that there is no such thing as universal morality, indeed in the idea he has given the only morality that one must practice is that of survival, excuse me but i think that this leaves us on the same plain as animals.

the very idea of humanity is based on self-improvement that is the idea that i look for in every philosophy or action i take into account.

so universal morality must be the definition by wich humanity quantifys it own progression.

I can claim that in that sense philosophy is failing, philosophy is a human atempt and it innately flawed.

we cannot formulate positions outside of our own view, if i belive a slave is sub-human i shall try to formulate an idea as to how correct iam an not HOW WRONG.

 

I would like to know fellow nomads idea on determinism.

 

this as plainy put is the idea that freadom of choice is non existent.

taking the example of me coming up and slapping a total stranger for no reason he has only the following reactions open to him

1- he might slap back

2- he might do nothing

or he might appeal to higher authority i.e the 50.

so strictly spaeking he does not have any freedom of choice because i have already limited his options!

Do you agree with this Holla!!

[Sophist]

Salamu Alaikum,

 

Thanks for starting such a potential mind-stimulating topic. Philosophy- Philo meaning love and Sophia wisdom is an enquiring subject that engages the mind. The mind however, is a limited in its scope so as the argument goes with the limitation of the mind a divine guidance needs to be employed as far as metaphysics is concerned.

 

Many amateurs with a little philosophical breadth have tried swim through perilous waters of Philosophy with disastrous result. How many times have I gazed upon subjects dealing with issues that with the outer shell looks like philosophy but a close scrutiny shows its blasphemous nature? This had been caused because some amateurs upon coming across the subject with its both potential stimulus and hazardous jumped through the circling machine to come out of the other side being altered intellectually. For this reason; from next Week insha Allah, I will endeavour to post articles about the history of Islamic Philosophy and the biographies of learned Muslim philosophers.

 

I shall start with Al-Kindi

 

Thus spake The old Nomad

 

Sophist

[Sophist]

Ogun,

 

I have to come back on one point; Nietzsche said God is Dead. Granted he had said that, but what was the meaning behind this turgid remark.

 

Let me offer my little knowledge on this particular philosopher- Nietzsche. Just like any other social commentator when reading their works one needs to understand the background of the writer and more importantly in what period he was writing- like what year, under what circumstances.

 

Nietzsche, first wrote this pompously dreary sentence in 1887 in famous book Gay Science (Gay meaning happy- the Science of happiness). In this period Christianity had been done away with. He came after the “enlightenment”. Okay on this back-drop two explanation are offered by scholars who studied thoroughly Nietzsche (I have indeed read most of his work from Thus Spake Zarathustra to Beyond Good and Evil; but I am no scholar). One is that Christianity had become irrelevant. And this Nietzsche makes clear in his other book the Anti-christ “The Christian conception of God... is one of the most corrupt conceptions of God arrived at on earth..." this clearly shows that what he was talking about was not the actual death of God but in fact the Conceptualisation of God in Christian thought.

 

More convincing explanation is the period Nietzsche lived in Europe Religion had become extraneous. Intellectuals emerged with disdain towards religion for they found Christianity- the religion of the Europeans- to be null and void. This had become the driving force of the period, consequently the people left the religion. Here is where Nietzsche comes. After studying the society he lived in and seeing that religion did not play role in their life he says “Whither is God, I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are murderers.... God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him... This clarifies his indignant outburst.

 

Nietzsche is a complex philosopher but he is by far the most interesting and easy to read German Philosophers. I hope I have contributed well.

 

Thus Spake the Old Nomad

 

Sophist

[FirstLady_Somalia]

Hi again, When i speak of Philosophy, I am not focussin on any school in particular. For Mahdi Sophist, and Ogun I ask you when you are explaining or want to engage a discussion to give an example of what you mean. I do agree with Mahdi, you write...philosophy has many broad sub topics in it, weather politicsl, moralisms, proving if we are here.

 

Have ya heard of the philosopher who argued that maybe the universe is big matrix that it's all in his head. That his head is in big bottle and something is controlling him to feel, smell. That he see people because it's programed,like a game. That was big controversy over that discussion. For mahdi, and the others I would like first for us to come up with little question to discuss....so we can mature into the more knowledgable seeking questions.

 

The book i would seggust would be "Sophies World"...i will get it'rs url. aiight...so please let's begin our mind searching resons.

 

Your homework.....llool......what is Utopia? and who invented it...or used it what philopher?.

[Liqaye]

I respect sophist's views but i must admit i am a little wary of him after all he chose to name him self after a school that believes in the art of convincing on supercilious and spurious grounds that on later analysis proves to be totally un-convincing, lool nuff said.

On neitzche's philosophy this illustrates the pitfalls of philosophy, his main contention is that the more humanity learns about it's condition both in the feild of science and in the politico-moral realm the less there is this respect awe and appreciation of the higher entity that use to govern all these things.

As such if god was a logicaly constructed by humanity to fill a logical void then he can be logically deconstructed by the ubermensch i.e superman or the highest level that humanity can inspire "itself to".

Then logically God is dead.

logically.

I dindt get what the lady said but utopia originally was not so much a creation but a vision of a rational and logical (notice the logical)put into eloquent word by sir thomas more, so just reapet the question, i am paying attention.

[Abdinuur]

Most philosophers are atheist and sometimes they say and ask very awkward questions and they try to explain the world as the eye sees it. My philosophy teacher is a crazy 'cause of the stuff he wonders about and imagines about.

 

Philosophy got some interesting points about the universe and life in general but most of it leads to atheistic. For instance, they strive for the life after death and that they tend to view this worldly life as a materialistic one...there is nothing wrong with that...but again, when they go deeper into these ideas, it leads to atheistic or whatever you wanna call it.

[Sophist]

FirstLady,

 

Any self-respecting young lady with intellectual curiosity have read Sophie’s world- though after reading that they become haughty and they think have drunk the whole barrel of which they indeed had tasted with inedequate longetivity.

 

Ogun

 

I carry the nick Sophist because friends at University had nicknamed me such despicable nick but then again you carry Ogun as a nick!!!!.

 

“On neitzche's philosophy this illustrates the pitfalls of philosophy, his main contention is that the more humanity learns about it's condition both in the field of science and in the politico-moral realm the less there is this respect awe and appreciation of the higher entity that use to govern all these things.”

 

Nay my friend for he never said such dim-witted remark. Philosophy has its pitfalls juts like anything that is not heavenly, to go your own way and generalise such thing then I must say it is lackadaisical to say the least. The subject is polymathic and wide-ranging and to pigeonhole such a vast subject is not scholarly. Anyhow, Nietzsche’s view on the subject of God being dead was not as it written and I thought I have dealt with the issue yesterday!!!!.

 

Thus Spake The old Nomad.

[Paragon]

Utopia by Sir Thomas More

[Liqaye]

ogun is an african expression of male exeptionality as a an idea it is a shaper of the myths of annunaki and dogon mysteries, and my english lit teacher thought it appropriate.

I have read sophists writing here and in other forums and i can only say..well it has been said better " he is inebriated with the luster of his own verbosity", some where along the way you picked up the idea that the more antic and inacssesible yor phrasing and enunciation of an argument, the more convincing you are, i hope that is not the case, low self-esteem and intellectual pretensions show through in that way.

secondly your input is not the end all of any discussion, and give the sister a break we have all started some where, and i dare say she is ahead of a lot of us by genuinley reaching out for a disscusion, and not some phraseological prancing that you obviously think is neccesary.

[Zaylici]

Philosophical papers

 

Philosophy is mode of thinking about nature and human conditions, this mode has distinguishable character relative to other modes that also account for nature and human conditions. Sir Karl Popper said “criticism is lifeblood of philosophy” (Philosophy in Britain to day P 210-211) I agree with Popper because I am convinced that any argument that claims to be immune from potential counter argument on any bases is outside the province of philosophy. Arguments or theories that are philosophical in nature are either produced through employment of logical reasoning or are inferred from empirically observable phenomena. If this is the case, they can be in principle challenged and some cases refuted. One of the hallmarks of philosophy is its acceptance the legitimacy of counter argument that enjoy some form of evidence or the use of logic to present case. This distinguishes philosophy from the rest of the means that are employed to account for things in the universe. In reference to the argument and evidence, Patricia said ‘ whether on the origins of the cosmos or in ethics and politics, were not offered as gospels to be accepted on divine or human authority, but as rational product to be accepted or rejected on the basis of evidence and argument’(Readings in ancient Greek philosophy P viii)

Hence we have provided accounts as to why we think extensive use of logic and reliance of empirical evidences are characteristics of philosophy, we proceed farther to assert that every thing that is related in any way to the human species is fair game to be subjected to critical inquiry, by critical inquiry here we mean systematic investigation with regard to the subject of interest. Philosophy, therefore, is way of elevating our understanding of things, put it differently, philosophy is a way of knowing things in the universe through employment of logical reasoning and observation.

When you say Mr. X is good you are implying that he exists and it is true that the word is indicates present verb in English grammar, when you say some thing is you are referring to something that exists at that moment regardless the form of its existence. That is you might say Air is fresh referring to a substance or he is good referring to an attribute of human personality. Therefore, I will interchangeably use the word is and existence in this paper.

Gorgias said ‘And in fact what is not is not. For if what is not is, it will be and not be at the same time. For in that it is considered as not being, it will not be, but in that it is not being, on the other hand, it will be. But it is completely absurd that something be and not being at the same time. Therefore it is not the case that what is not is’( Pre Socratics reader P 99)

 

Gorgies is trying to refute the existence of non existence things, in doing so he supposes the existence of non existing things, for the sake of clarity of this argument, let us say X is non existing things, we suppose for a moment that X exists, if we do then we admit that X has two properties that is to say X exist and not exists at the same time. We agree that one attribute is the property of X that is the non existence; however, we do not agree that X has also the property of existence in addition to the nonexistence at the same time. I agree with Gorgies that a thing cannot own two apposite properties at the same. It also seems to me that this is correct because you cannot assert with degree of accuracy that Mark is Professor and not a professor at the same time.

C- I think Gorgies is philosopher for the following reasons; first Gorgies extensively uses the tools of logical reasoning to present his cases. Gorgies does not say that this material is revealed to me by divine entity, nor explicitly or implicitly affirms that his argument should be taken without further scrutiny on the grounds that he is the wisest man in whole Greek world. It is very clear to me that Gorgies is using logical reasoning to speculate about the nature of things based on the quotation that I provided above. Logic dictates that if some statement is constructed through logical reasoning then that logic could also be used by another person to challenge the statement. Therefore, the use of the logical reasoning by Gorgies and the inference we made with regard to the use of logic allows me to claim that Gorgies is Philosopher.

Zaylici

[Zaylici]

The preceding article is written by Zaylici in celebration for our philosophical dicussion. I have dedicated the preceeding article to the Firstlady who brought the motion. I am student of Philosophy and lover of knowledge

By

Zaylici