Martyrs of Thought

[Mutakalim]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

A gracious exit of this bog.

[/QB]

Alahayoow nimaan wax ogeeyn ha cadaabin

[NGONGE]

This, sadly, is another case of words changing the course of a whole discussion. It seems that the use of the word “Martyr†did not sit well with many readers. I’ll even wager that some did not participate in this topic purely because of their objection to such a word! How could such infidel philosophers be referred to with such a noble word?

 

Though the word is synonymous with the Arabic word “Shaheedâ€, it really does not have the same connotations. A Shaheed, in most instances, is someone who dies in the name of his faith (mostly Islam). A martyr on the other hand can equally apply to religion (mainly Christianity) or any person(s) that sacrifice their life for a principle, point of view or belief. There should be no real objection to the use of the word martyr when referring to those philosophers.

 

In the case of logic, reason and philosophy many people close their minds to the idea and assume that ALL those interested in such a subject must be some sort of religious deviants! If they’re really being generous and nice, they assume that they’re merely poor and misled sheep!

 

 

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. I shall not attempt to give any examples for I believe our resident archbishop of the church of reason has provided ample illustrations of basic logic. Examples even the silliest amongst us can not refute!

 

We seem to have reached the usual crossroad, which way will we choose? Does one use reason to find, strengthen and compliment their faith, or, do we follow the words of the famous old English poet and say “ ours is not to reason why�

 

PS

Logic is not a faith.

[Viking]

Originally posted by MsWord:

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

MsWord,

The Torah and the Injeel were sent to a specific people...In which other "Kutab" could these men have found "the Truth"?

[xiinfaniin]

Originally posted by Mutakallim:

Alahayoow nimaan wax ogeeyn ha cadaabin

AAMIIN. :cool:

[Muhammad]

for all men, in all ages, verily these verses ring true:

 

[Mutakalim]

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.

[Baashi]

The point of the post reads like this: these folks were thinkers who stood up and advocated for their core beliefs, therefore they’re martyrs irrespective of the cause of their death. One would think that martyrs die for their beliefs at the hand of opponents, enemy, or authority. They’re martyrs (if we use Ngonge’s understanding of the word) not because they died nor because they were great philosophers but merely because they were killed by agents who deemed their ideas wrong.

 

Excluding Socrates here is the logic of Mutakalims post: folks whose deaths are result of car accidents, suicides, and natural deaths (illness) = Martyrs. Awesome!

[J.Lee]

Viking: Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't there a Kutab revealed to the masses before the revelations of The Furqaan, The Torah and The Injeel?

 

Mutakallim: Logic is not a belief, say you for it's a tool used to find and interpret the truth which is an understandable statement yet I can't help but ask,as a muslim, what the truth you mean to find and interpret is?

 

Furtheremore, I'm sure you're familiar with Cleanthes', another of Hume's character in the same dialogue as Philo, argument for Design in which he argued that the World was a big machine and its design should make it obvious that there is an Intelligent Maker (i.e, God, diety)

 

I already knew that, by just having the faith that I have, that if one looked at the design of the world they would arrive at the same conclusion (regardless if they believed that intelligent maker to be Jesus, Allah,etc) but is it because he used reason and logic to arrive at the "truth" that his "opinion" is more credible than mine and if it is then Why?

 

Furthermore, If One puts trust and confidence in logic in order to find "truth", it's a belief

 

Therefore, It's a belief, if one puts trust and confidence in Logic in order to find "truth"

 

Logic is a belief because philosophers rely,trust and are confident that if they use Logic then they would find the "truth" (Valid, of course)

 

Lets not forget that Belief is defined as The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another or as Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. Logic, even though it draws a distinction between validity and the truth, according to that definition is a belief.

 

And BTW, Correct me if I'm wrong, You say you're a Muslim, yet you state you do not need to presuppose the truth of any statement so how do justify, using logic, your believe in Allah's existance? are you not presupposing that his existance, because you're a muslim who mustn't question his existance for you submitted to his will, is true therefore not false?

 

A Christian could equally retort, "the Bible is true and unchanged, because in the Bible it says that it is true and unchanged".

The bible has been changed many many many times, one has to but look at its many versions to know that therefore that objection is dismisable for it has been changed. One can argue that The Torah is true but it mainly consists of the Scrolls, supposedly passages from the original "torah", found in the Dead sea between 1947 until 1960 therefore it's authenticity is questionable. However, the Quran has been unchanged nor is its authenticity questioned therefore it's true.

 

As for your "eternal damnation" comment,Buddhism is, in my opinion, not complete for it neither confirms nor denies the existance of a God, Hell, Demons, etc. Buddhism along with Judaism, if either of them were The True religion, neither deny nor confirm the existance of hell (nor heaven for that matter) therefore there would be no eternal damination in hereafter for me if I died as a Muslim (Insha'allah).

 

As for Christianity,Jesus as Christians believe died for all OUR sins thus if Christianity was "The true" religion there wouldn't be any need for Hell to exist (now would there?), so why would I "espouse that religion which is the most rational and logical" when I would be scotch free, yet again, if I died as I lived, as a Muslim.

 

P.s

No one wrote Logic is a faith.

[Mutakalim]

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!

[Mutakalim]

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.

[Baashi]

^Not really!!!! Let’s take off the gloves and see if ur argument holds water. Notice I’ve accepted (for the sake of argument) the connotation of “the†word (martyr). Still ur post has many holes. Here is what I come up just so u know that mine is no straw man argument.

 

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.

 

Assertion #1

Folks who experience 1 through 5 DO NOT rise to “martyrs of thought†level.

 

Assertion #2

There is no distinction between philosophers who experience 1 tthrough 5 and ANYONE else who go through the same ordeal.

 

Basis of the argument:

Suffering hardship not related directly to thinkers work cannot and should not be counted toward the making of martyr.

 

Note: The reasoning for the sake of reasoning (or the lack thereof ) should get ur heart racing and adrenaline pumping

 

I await an impressive to-the-point comeback.

[Viking]

Originally posted by MsWord:

Viking: Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't there a Kutab revealed to the masses before the revelations of The Furqaan, The Torah and The Injeel?

MsWord,

Which other revealed scriptures do you know of besides the Zaboor, Taurat, Injiil and Qur'an?

[Dhagax-Tuur]

A/Calaykum...

 

I am....there is a word that i am looking for to describe how de-fragmented and exploded my mind is with the heavy ideas and argument of these mortals....searching......not found. Now, will you (novice philosophy enthusiasts) stop making this hut (buul) un-liveable for the rest of us who don't give a monkey about falsafad (this falsified notion(s)).....That is of course a polite request. No, that is an order, hear that an order!

 

Now, will i be allowed to spoil this at times interesting and others hot-chilli discussion? Ah, what the heck, I'll plunge in head first.

 

What Monsieur Mutakallim started with was fine in that it suggested tht it is tough to swim against the tide, but easy to do the opposite (words of a Sheik i once listened to), but ....at this point my brain lost its power.... it is preparing to standby.....still standby...

 

Back on track, Mutakallim, I say this, if you can't see reasoning and logic in the Quran which Allah SW continuously challenges humanity to think and ponder and look for it elsewhere such as in kuffars (like Aristotle, Socrates etc), you are deluded. I will forever die with the stance that Ms Word has taken...Allah wa Rasool: Rasool-u-Laah said: Laaluhaa ka nahaarihaa...roughly its night its like its day...from point of clarity. And this can be proven thru reason, but that reasoning requires hidaayah and submission...those are the keys. Enough said, and i would like to conclude by saying somebody BRING THIS PHILOSOPHY BULLSHIT to a halt before i draw my pistol and leave some damage here....ah?

 

Illaahay wadada xaqa ah ee toosan ha nagu hanuuniyo...aamiin.

 

ps, I unreservedly apologise to anyone that my words hurt their feelings in anyway, if ever they do.

 

Jizzaakumu-Laahu kheyran.

 

W/salaam.

[NGONGE]

There seems to be many strands to this topic now. There is the "logic is a belief" schoold of, erm, dare I say "thought"! There is also the "they were not martyrs‘" front, and we even had someone mistaking the thread for a bog!

 

Without wishing to get into a long discussion over semantics, I only want to attract Ms Word's attention to the easy and natural interchange between the words “faith†and “beliefâ€. Again, this is a case of playing with words (or even misusing them). When one argues that he/she believes in Allah, and that their opponent (for lack of a better word) believes in logic and reason, it could only mean they’re equating reason to religion! Logic, reason and philosophy are not faiths.

 

For one to follow a particular faith, one will either inherit the idea from their parents and treat it as a tradition (as do many Muslims, Christians and Jews). One might be born into a religion yet still ponder, reflect and employ all his reasoning skills to ensure that he’s on the right path. Once one submits, they submit with conviction, not blind faith. I’ve said it in the past and I say it again, I tend to err on the side of caution. So, while I agree with and encourage the principles of using one’s reason and logic in everything, I fear there is a chance that many green and unprepared minds might easily deviate from the right, reasonable, natural, and logical path. Sometimes, dogmatism is a worthy shelter.

 

 

In one of his great movies, Burce Lee once said: When finger points at moon, don't look at finger or you'll miss the moon.

 

 

This saying is probably an old Chinese proverb. It seems to fit in perfectly with the way I understood this topic. The case for martysim might have not been that strong, however, there was just enough information to justify the use of the word. Having said that, this was merely the shallow end of the piece. Wading into the deep end, I understood the message as being one that champions the freedom to think and make use of our cognitive faculties, rather than one that aims to sell the very crude and, simply, unnecessary idea of dead people.

 

Where I feel a misunderstanding has occurred is in the implied assertions and the way people perceived them! This might also have something to do with the previous record of the author of this piece. Though I agree with him that people should attack the argument not the person, things are never that easy or straightforward. People form an opinion of a person judging by his previous performances, they need to have a reference point in order to work out what hidden messages or morals his stories have! Here, the consensus seems to be one of apprehension. Some of the questions this Nomad poses are/were very close to the knuckles. They consistently have been about philosophy and religion. The people feel that the author’s loyalties tilt sharply in favour of philosophy rather than religion, and as such, they reject any pieces he writes on those bases. Some go further than that and openly accuse him of having weak faith!

 

I strongly doubt this to be the case and believe that when the issue is one religion versus philosophy, care should be taken when accusing or suspecting someone of deviating in such a way. In fact, such a thought should not be publicised unless one has indisputable proof that this is indeed the case.

 

Of course I might be talking utter nonsense and none of this is real.

[Baashi]

Someone is reading too much into that post! I concur . Someone is somehow bringing back forgotten exchanges of the past! Someone is pointing the finger instead of the moon! Who’s that?

 

Mutakalim,

Don’t let me down buddy . I want you to stand by your first post and embrace my challenge posted in the previous post. Or we can let it slide and start a new post where you clearly state what is it that you want to talk about be it Logic vs. Faith or what have you. I promise I’ll be there and I sure will give a run for your preferred subject . Fair enough eh!