Martyrs of Thought

[Mutakalim]

The first philosopher known to us as an individual person is also the first to die an interesting and dramatic death. Socrates, condemned to death by the Athenian state for, among other things, corrupting the young, drank hemlock amongst his friends, as memorably recounted in Plato's Phaedo . Lucretius is alleged to have killed himself after being driven mad by taking a love philtre. Seneca opened his veins in the bath after falling out with Nero. Boethius was strangled on the orders of the Ostrogoth king, Theodoric. Peter of Spain, having been pope for a year as John XXI, was killed by a roof collapse. Simon Magus, expecting a miracle, had himself buried alive and died of it. Giordano Bruno was burnt by the Inquisition. Uriel da Costa, after being flogged and trampled over by the Jewish community he had offended, went home and shot himself. Thomas More was beheaded. Francis Bacon died of a cold contracted while stuffing snow into a chicken as an experiment in refrigeration. Descartes was similarly afflicted through rising early to instruct Queen Christina of Sweden. Albert Camus, while on a trip to spain, was killed in a car accident. Hume died cheerfully, after fending off the pressing inquiries of Boswell about an atheist's attitude to death. Hegel died in a cholera epidemic. Nietzsche went mad and died from syphillis. Gentile was murdered by communist partisans for his involvement with Mussolini's fascist regime. Simone Well starved herself to death for the sake of solidarity with her compatriots in occupied France. Richard Montague was beaten to death by a piece of rough trade he had brought home. A decade after murdering his wife, Althusser died of a heart attack. Foucault, thinking AIDS was another myth invented by the powerful in order to suppress minorities, died from HIV. Kurt Gödel starved himself in fear of being poisoned. However, for the most part, as might have been expected, philosophers have died in their beds, a natural death.

 

For interesting biographies of philosophers, read Paul Edwards Encyclopedia of Philosophy and The Routelege Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

 

With Salaams

Philosopher-King

 

P.S. Such was the end of the soldiers battling the seige of truth. Indeed, the plant of philosophy requires no less.

[J.Lee]

Inaa lilaahi wa'inaa ilaahi raajacuun.

 

Martyrs? What a bunch of Crockers!

 

It's sad and quite ironic that "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 which they discredited and dismissed because the truth (God,Ethics and etc) they've concluded, in order for it to be The Truth ought to be derived by using reason and logic rather than fideism nor revealed knowledge such as The Quran.

 

a grave mistake, I'm sure they later whilst in their grave, painfully regreted.

 

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?

[Salma]

Mutakallim,

 

Uriel da Costa shot himself and Kurt Gödel starved himself in fear of being poisoned, Seneca opened his veins in the bath. As a matter of fact,I see them cowards not Martyrs. Besides, it seems Alber Camus was searching again and again for his existence at that time and he couldn't find it and he killed himself too.

 

Normal endings for the western philosophers, as a reason for being lost & misguided and always following their minds in everything.

 

I hope you tell us the names of the philosopers who died normally :rolleyes:

[NGONGE]

Some of those mentioned seem to have died “normal†deaths, others were killed; the point the author was trying to make should not be lost on the readers though!

 

 

One can also recount the names of a number of Muslim thinkers who died/were killed for simply daring to “thinkâ€! This would have pleased the objectors to this piece but would have made no difference to the idea the author of this thread had in mind (as I understood – of course, I could be mistaken).

 

Most of the philosophers and personalities named in the piece above had one thing in common; they were ready to challenge what’s considered the norm. They wanted to know more about themselves and the world they live in. Some decided to forsake the idea of a higher being and rather rely on their intellect alone! Others, used their intellect to find, understand and observe such a being in everything, idea or thought they encountered! Many did not share the same faith as most readers on this site; however, they had the qualities that we should all strive to have. They freed themselves from the dogmatic shackles of everyday society and dared to THINK.

 

For some, the process was overwhelming and death was but a sweet end. For others, the journey was great and was sadly cut short by the hands of others. Regardless of their end, one can’t help but smile and appreciate some of the light they shone in the darkness of our intellect.

 

 

PS

If I seem too romantic and unusually soft in my words, you needn’t panic, I’m not ill; I’m just on holiday.

[Mutakalim]

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

[J.Lee]

Maandhow, this is not a symposium in which you pin point the weakness' in my "argument" or lack of. I just found it amusing that you considered these men to be martyrs supposedly because they have boldy gone where no men have gone before.

 

Originally posted by MsWord:

It's sad and quite ironic that "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 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 trying to prove to be true in my "argument"?

 

Furthermore, since you "very much doubt that there was any reliable scripture of revelation at the time of Socrates", provide proof.

 

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.

You can "equally assume" what you like, it's really none of my concern. Besides in that whole sentence you're "assuming" that, that is what I'm arguing for when it isn't so I guess you're "in the business of making assumptions."

 

War balaayo anagaa araknay. 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.

 

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".

So then Aristotle was a "immoral" fulay. 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.

 

One has to question, once 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.o

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 so 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?

[Mutakalim]

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

[J.Lee]

Originally posted by Mutakallim:

This is not the Poetry forum it is the Debate forum. Do you not agree?

Touche

 

 

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

It's apparant to me atleast that you're in dire need of reading glasses, Maandow as I've already stated before and as I will right now, for your poor vision have led me to be repetitious as a rewind button, I never made the claim that Socrates followed some sort of revealed knowledge. 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, that the truth these martyrs of thought searched for they could of found it in the Quran, which I'm sure you were once familiar with, however except, 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 and 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.

 

 

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

 

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. Philosophers, these "martyrs", switched beliefs and simply use one to judge another for I'm sure, 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 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.

Thus far reason, I'm guessing, hasn't deemed one true or has it?

[NGONGE]

[Mutakalim]

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

[J.Lee]

I didn't mean to be insulting and for that I apologize.

 

My "argument" is;

 

Philosophers (except Socrates) could find "The truth" they search for in the Quran

 

Because Socrates died before the Quran was revealed

 

However, he could of found "the truth" he searched for in another Kutab

 

Therefore The Truth can be found in revealed knowledge (In Islam to be exact)

 

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, isn't logical nor reasonable to you since you don't hold the said Faith as I. 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.

[xiinfaniin]

Originally posted by MsWord:

..... since you don't hold the said Faith as I.

Najjaasaa Fayleh! :confused:

 

Originally posted by MsWord:

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.

A gracious exit of this bog.

[Viking]

Originally posted by MsWord:

My "argument" is;

 

Philosophers (except Socrates) could find "The truth" they search for in the Quran

 

Because Socrates died before the Quran was revealed

 

However, he could of found "the truth" he searched for in another Kutab

 

Therefore The Truth can be found in revealed knowledge (In Islam to be exact)

Some of the men mentionned lived either in pre-Islamic times and some were even born years before Jesus (AS). Where does that leave your argument Ms Word?

[J.Lee]

Regardless of what era they lived in, the "conclusion" still stands

[Mutakalim]

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