Dream or Life, which is the true reality?

[Mutakalim]

J11

 

Salaams. I hope you are enjoying the best of circumstances in health and faith (faith? Perhaps I should say reason). At any rate, I am still awaiting your response to my post. I am eager to take our discussion to the next plateau should you wish so. However, do not give me false anticipation.

 

PS

 

I have given you sufficient time to review all necessary literature.....

[Paragon]

^^^ Alxamdullilaah. I am well and rested but I haven't researched this topic since there is nothing there to spend time on. Below I tried to answer you promptly.

----

 

Mutakalim, these are the philosophical questions asking of me that I:

 

"...1. must provide proofs for this (and i have read both of your posts completely), or at least use a clear syllogism where you state your premises clearly.

2.you must define dream

3.you say in this sentence that the, on the one hand, life is a dream, on the other that it is true and permanent. this requires clarification; perhaps your definition would help...."

 

To this question of yours, although I am not a big fan of logical mathematics, I shall once again make it clear that my topic has no relations to the famous philosophical ‘Truth-Value’, t or f of premise, proportion and conclusion. I know you asked the question hoping that the validity of my post will rest upon the notion of: “If functions”. It seems when I gave you an answer ‘you found it difficult to comprehend what I was talking about’ and you could only comprehend arguments in the light of employing philosophical explanatory tools that you are used to. In fear that this may be the case I pointed out that this ‘dream’ topic is “just pure thought expressed in the most simplest and understandable fashion. [And] that the topic and the thoughts content in it are but philosophical”. But you didn’t understand and went commenting at a later post that,

 

"....Anyone with a rudimentary and basic understanding of Philosophy will tell you that the question of Reality is purely and exclusively a metaphysical question.."

 

Your above quote may hold true, and I confess that because I haven’t read philosophy broadly (as you did, I suppose), I am not well versed in metaphysics or in that case the ‘Cartesian Dualism’ of Mind and Body, nor do I know much about the notion that some senses may be lacking of “clarity and distinction’ in the context of reasoning. However, talking of premises, on what premise have you chosen to question me if you assumed I am talking philosophically when I am not? I can not remember challenging or refuting your knowledge in the field of philosophy, nor can I claim dreams aren’t metaphysical questions or not – though this may attract objections from other individuals. When I said “no proof can be obtained for dreams; rather, the existences of dreams are like myths and legends. We cannot prove them so we accept them at face value”, I thought you did understand me; because if you did you wouldn’t have waited this long for an answer. The answer is already there, and I hoped by using “Silence as the Answer”; for you to read again, you will reach the realization that you don’t deserve an answer all together.

 

If, say, you put to me that ‘a Deer drinks water in dreams and not in real life’ (this being a classical Somali philosophical argument), but I reply ‘no camels drink water real life and not dreams’, then you must know that I have all-together abandoned the premise of your argument and used a totally different one. My answer is right in its own right but not to your own assertions about ‘a Deer’. This is exactly the mistake you have made. My mistake was to make the assumption that a man of your calibre, who spent ’11 years reading philosophy’ wouldn’t have wasted time, eagerly waiting for another answer when it was already given. Nevertheless, I shall continue further to look at the relevance at some of your questions that I haven’t answered yet.

 

You asked: “What is a cosmic universe?” Cosmic : ‘inconceivably extended in space or time’. Universe: ‘the whole collection of existing things’. That is the definition of the two words that comprise ‘cosmic universe’. "Dreams are not touchable; they exist in their own cosmic universe where souls escape to when they leave the bodies behind.” What is here that you cannot understand?

 

"...A lot of points are made here. Let me number them and simplify them, so that the inconsistency becomes manifest.

1.dreams are not touchable

2.souls exist in their own realm

these points lead to

3.dreams are the reality

4.life is one figment of dreams

 

So, from this, life is one figment of reality? and dreams are real, so life is real, by virtue of being a dream. surely you see an inconsistency in this...."

 

To be honest, there was no inconsistency in my initial sentences, however, I can ‘surely’ see the inconsistencies you have created yourself. Firstly, you rightly brought forth by point by writing that: “1 – dreams are not touchable.” To this I say, yes dreams are not touchable; I can prove that by asking you to prove that dreams can be touched. Secondly, you tried to create an inconsistency here, and misleadingly twisted my words from: “Dreams…exist in their own cosmic universe souls escape to when they leave the bodies behind”, to “souls exist in the own realm”. While I talk of the existence of dreams and reality, you introduce the existence of souls to illusively misguide my assertions. Surely, the inconsistency now lies with you, don’t you agree? Or perhaps not!

 

Thirdly, you rightly dissected a true point from my initial posts, and for that I thank you for the clarity manifest in it not the inconsistency. Last but not least, you eventually touched on the premise the whole topic in based and whenever you understand it, to begin with, we can discuss it further.

 

"....I will employ the principle of charity. Perhaps are you saying that the realm of the soul is more real, because it is not material. but then

1.this would not mean that the material world does not exist

2.you would have to prove that point, namely that the realm of the soul is superior, and explaining why

3.you would have to explain your alternative. is it idealism (as it seems when one first reads your posts), or something else?..."...

 

The principle of charity you seem to employ is based on something unmentioned or non-existent in this topic. If you are interested, in a ‘Socratic’ way, to learn by questioning about the realness of the soul or material, then perhaps we shall start another topic.

 

"...I completely disagree with you here. Life was not created to test adam and eve, but us all. Adam, peace be upon him, was not created for paradise, but for earth, as the quranic verses clearly state. The paradise of adam and eve is not the paradise promised to the righteous and virtuous among us after death. The laws governing that paradise are indeed far from those of the one where adam started out. When we say that we will go to heaven, or paradise, it is not the same as the one where adam dwelled a little moment...."

 

If it is not for argument’s sake, we can know more about this matter if we consult with brothers and sisters who are well-read. There are things I cannot comment on because I do not wish to fall in the trap of ignorance. Brothers and Sisters of SOL do give us your take on matter addressed in the above quote.

[Mutakalim]

J11:- That I was anticipating you to formulate coherent thoughts there can be no doubt. However, you could not even form so much as a single thought which could substantiated. To say I was expecting you to substantiate your "Dreams are more real than life" theory would be a great mendacity. I was more interested in your critical thinking skills and you have displayed that you have no such faculty. You have made more than 23 logical fallicies in the previous post alone(Pedantic am I?).

 

By the way, I believe in Elephants that are pink.. actually, I think they also have the capability of flight. You will never see them because they are "untouchable"; they exist in their own cosmic universe. I can prove this by asking you to prove that these elephants can be touched. This is precisely the structure of your argument; a blatant fallacy. This one sure gave me a good laugh.

[Paragon]

^^^ I think you should go to what was the topic? erm .. Nothingness and Being...

 

To say I was expecting you to substantiate your "Dreams are more real than life" theory would be a great mendacity.

I wasn't really expecting anything from you. Because obviously you got on the wrong foot to begin with. So that is that.

 

I was more interested in your critical thinking skills and you have displayed that you have no such faculty.

Lol. Why do I get the impression that you were more interested in portraying yourself as a pseudo-intellectual, than being interested in critical thinking.

 

You have made more than 23 logical fallicies in the previous post alone

(Pedantic am I?)

.

When someone is pedantic, he/she pays attention to detail. You were not that person, are you?

[Mutakalim]

Originally posted by J11:

^^^ I think you should go to what was the topic? erm .. Nothingness and Being...

Being and Nothingness say you is the topic of discussion? Please do not confuse yourself further.

 

I wasn't really expecting anything from you. Because obviously you got on the wrong foot to begin with. So that is that.

Why are Somalis a haughty lot? I believe you will not concede that you were blissfully ignorant when you penned these thoughts. This is nothing save a philosophical subject; insofar as you define your thoughts as "pure" or "non-philosophical" is irrelevant. Please stop posting drivel....*****..... :mad:

 

When someone is pedantic, he/she pays attention to detail. You were not that person, are you?

You missed the point again.

 

P.S. The "pink elephants" are a irritable species. Should you *******ize this thread further, viz. by posting another incoherent response, the "pink elephants" will forthwith invade your dwelling. Beware of those creatures! Do you not apprehend the pink elephants? You must needs apprehend this conception in the same fashion you apprehended your all-encompassing "cosmic universe". :rolleyes:

[Paragon]

Why are Somalis a haughty lot? I believe you will not concede that you were blissfully ignorant when you penned these thoughts.

LooooL@haughty lot! OK I am 'Blissfully ignorant' then. Ignorance is bliss right? And, with your knowledge of philosophy, you are intelligent Lol.. Isn't that what you wanted me to say? Oh, let me not forget that 'the pink elephant', I do not possess the faculty to comprehend! What more can one say? Satisfied now?

[Mutakalim]

J11/Cali:- I presume you be an infant not; at least not literally. Either you have not been paying attention to my responses or you are incredibly slow. Please delete your first post in this thread as we mutually agreed that it is nonsensical.

 

 

P.S. You are less annoying in person.

[sheherazade]

Originally posted by Mutakalim:

J11

 

However, do not give me false anticipation.

 

PS

 

I have given you sufficient time to review all necessary literature.....

**Pistols at dawn**

[Paragon]

Reading some Al-ghazali writings, I have come accross a reflection of what I set out to highlight in this topic of:Dream or Life, which is the true reality? I think the below quote is relevant to topic, and may serve to salvage it from the engulfing jaws of digression.

The Subterfuges of the Sophists

 

I then examined what knowledge I possessed, and discovered that in none of it, with the exception of sense-perceptions and necessary principles, did I enjoy that degree of certitude which I have just described. I then sadly reflected as follows: "We can not hope to find truth except in matters which carry their evidence in themselves---that is to say, in sense-perceptions and necessary principles; we

 

must therefore establish these on a firm basis. Is my absolute confidence in sense-perceptions and on the infallibility of necessary principles analogous to the confidence which I formerly possessed in matters believed on the authority of others? Is it only analogous to the reliance most people place on their organs of vision, or is it rigorously true without admixture of illusion or doubt?"

 

I then set myself earnestly to examine the notions we derive from the evidence of the senses and from sight in order to see if they could be called in question. The result of a careful examination was that my confidence in them was shaken. Our sight, for instance, perhaps the best practiced of all our senses, observes a shadow, and finding it apparently stationary pronounces it devoid of movement. Observation and experience, however, show subsequently that a shadow moves not suddenly, it is true, but gradually and imperceptibly, so that it is never really motionless.

 

Again, the eye sees a star and believes it as large as a piece of gold, but mathematical calculations prove, on the contrary, that it is larger than the earth. These notions, and all others which the senses declare true, are subsequently contradicted and convicted of falsity in an irrefragable manner by the verdict of reason.

 

Then I reflected in myself: "Since I can not trust to the evidence of my senses, I must rely only on intellectual notions based on fundamental principles, such as the following axioms: 'Ten is more than three. Affirmation and negation can not coexist together. A thing can not both be created and also existent from eternity, living and annihilated simultaneously, at once necessary and impossible.'" To this the notions I derived from my senses made the following objections: "Who can guarantee you that you can trust to the evidence of reason more than to that of the senses? You believed in our testimony till it was contradicted by the verdict of reason, otherwise you would have continued to believe it to this day. Well, perhaps, there is above reason another judge who, if he appeared, would convict reason of falsehood, just as reason has confuted us. And if such a third arbiter is not yet apparent, it does not follow that he does not exist."

 

To this argument I remained some time without reply; a reflection drawn from the phenomena of sleep deepened my doubt. "Do you not see," I reflected, "that while asleep you assume your dreams to be indisputably real? Once awake, you recognize them for what they are---baseless chimeras. Who can assure you, then, of the reliability of notions which, when awake, you derive from the senses and from reason? In relation to your present state they may be real; but it is possible also that you may enter upon another state of being which will bear the same relation to your present state as this does to your condition when asleep. In that new sphere you will recognize that the conclusions of reason are only chimeras."

 

This possible condition is perhaps, that which the Sufis call "ecstasy" (hal), that is to say, according to them, a state in which, absorbed in themselves and in the suspension of sense-perceptions, they have visions beyond the reach of intellect. Perhaps also Death is that state, according to that saying of the prince of prophets:

"Men are asleep; when they die, they wake." Our present life in relation to the future is perhaps only a dream, and man, once dead, will see things in direct opposition to those now before his eyes; he will then understand that word of the Qur'an, "To-day we have removed the veil from thine eyes and thy sight is keen."

 

Such thoughts as these threatened to shake my reason, and I sought to find an escape from them. But how? In order to disentangle the knot of this difficulty, a proof was necessary. Now a proof must be based on primary assumptions, and it was precisely these of which I was in doubt. This unhappy state lasted about two months, during which I was, not, it is true, explicitly or by profession, but morally and essentially, a thorough-going skeptic.

 

God at last deigned to heal me of this mental malady; my mind recovered sanity and equilibrium, the primary assumptions of reason recovered with me all their stringency and force. I owed my deliverance, not to a concatenation of proofs and arguments, but to the light which God caused to penetrate into my heart---the light which illuminates the threshold of all knowledge. To suppose that certitude can be only based upon formal arguments is to limit the boundless mercy of God. Some one asked the Prophet the explanation of this passage in the Divine Book: "God opens to Islam the heart of him whom he chooses to direct." "That is spoken," replied the Prophet, "of the light which God sheds in the heart." "And how can man recognize that light?" he was asked. "By his detachment from this world of illusion and by a secret drawing toward the eternal world," the Prophet replied.

 

On another occasion he said: "God has created his creatures in darkness, and then has shed upon them his light." It is by the help of this light that the search for truth must be carried on. As by his mercy this light descends from time to time among men, we must ceaselessly be on the watch for it. This is also corroborated by another saying of the Apostle: "God sends upon you, at certain times, breathings of his grace; be prepared for them."

 

My object in this account is to make others understand with what earnestness we should search for truth, since it leads to results we never dreamed of. Primary assumptions have not got to be sought for, since they are always present to our minds; if we engage in such a search, we only find them persistently elude our grasp. But those who push their investigation beyond ordinary limits are safe from the suspicion of negligence in pursuing what is within their reach.

Source: <a href="http://http://http://http://http://http://www.al-ghazali.org" target="_blank">www.al-ghazali.org

[Paragon]

To be discussed.

[Cara.]

What if, like, the world is just, like, a dream, man?

 

Dude.

[Paragon]

Yeah dude, what if?

[Cara.]

Or, what if, like, exactly half the people in the world are actually aliens in disguise? What if their real form is some sort of soap-bubble undersea creature from another galaxy, and they came here just to try out a more terrestrial lifestyle? What if they are completely indistinguishable from real people, except every now and then they forget and then they'll burst if a sharp object pierces them?

 

Dude, I'm totally carrying a needle with me from now on.

[xiinfaniin]

There are creatures from different galaxies in our midst. Observant, extremely attentive, and always on the ball, these creatures keep close eye on our activities. Their chief responsibility is to collect relevant data on how we live our life, and perpetually record it till we perish and depart from this world! Whether they are uniquely engineered to elude our senses and operate in utter secrecy in our presence is in the realm of unknowns. But that they exist is beyond doubt…at least for the believers!

 

Now, on what grounds can one dispute the existence of these record keepers? That they can’t be proved because they can’t be physically touched?

 

Forget about the dreams for now yaa Jamal1, for dreams are mere replays or previews of a reality that has already transpired or is about to transpire in the near future, respectively!

[Paragon]

Cara, lol . You are good at this I must say. Would love to pick your brain some day .

 

Xiinfaniin, ina adeer, I like to consider myself a believer and I happen to believe in the existance of those creatures. That they are jotting down all that we say, do and think there cannot be a doubt. But I hope believing in dreams isn't such a big sin as to nullify whatever good that might have gone towards my records.

 

I am sorry, brother. I cannot forget about them, I mean dreams for now because I am mindful of the now-after. The other problem is, what you say might be previous of what has been, is, and to come, is not how I see them. I saw them as the state of the now.