Martyrs of Thought

[Mutakalim]

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

[checkmate]

^^And yet,you say your NOT here to score POINTS. Job very well done old friend. :confused: :confused:

 

 

asxantu

[Baashi]

Smiling @ list of fruits. Very hilarious but no substance!

 

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

.

Firstly, I must congratulate you for taking up the challenge. That was very brave of you . Secondly, although bit didactic and below the belt dismissals at times nevertheless the last write-up addressed several pertinent points. Over all not much of refutation except: a) the way I structured the argument didn’t conform to your preferred methodology. b) You were merely addressing historical facts hence I unnecessarily took issue with something you never argued for in the first place.

 

Very well Mutakalim. Still the facts you delineated in your first post and the deliberate but misleading title you have given the thread says nothing about martyrdom. In fact it might be the case that these men had a profession where they utilize their intellect and rational thinking to enquire and “dare to think†and get rewarded wholesomely for their work. It might be the case that these gentlemen spend much of their time socializing with monarchs, aristocracy, and upper class folks in luxurious palaces until the end when they contracted that syphilis or the cold or what have you. 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.

 

It’s noticeable that you somehow kind of equating people who “dare to think†or come up with a new ideas that form the basis of new ideologies with martyrs. I disagree with the title "martyrs" designated to philosophers. Anyone who wishes to expound such claim ought to come up more than a list of men who used to “dare to think†and ultimately went to their graves dying in natural death.

 

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?

At the risk of offending you I argue once more that the fact that 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! It would be very interesting if you rather refute this supposedly “silly†argument instead of sharing with us a joke - that would be, I’m sure you would concur, uncalled for .

[xiinfaniin]

Alahayoow nimaan wax ogeeyn ha cadaabin.

Ninku kibirku shaanshaan ka ridey waaya shaxartaanye

Misna waxanu sheekada ku darin shiishka soo maqane

Inta Shaqalka gaabani u jiro sheeg haddaad garato!

[Sincere]

The savvy debater can manipulate semantics to obscure the logical structure of their argument. PK, listing their methods of death, disintergrates any premise-conclusion chain argument brought forth ( one does not neccessarily have to "die" to be a martyr) If the corrolation between title and thread was penned intentionaly, then the snare you set is worthy of praise.

[Mutakalim]

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

[Mutakalim]

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

[xiinfaniin]

Originally posted by Mutakallim:

Aniga, Xiinfiin el al: To those of you who are dryly righteous without understanding,

You (this virtual character called Mutakalim) wryly make claims that you can’t defend without resorting to cheap dismissals. Needless to say seeking refuge in the verses of that Arab poet speaks volumes of your inability to reason. That’s indeed the great irony of your sardonic writing!

If I were you I would graciously retreat to the dark bunkers of illusion and hope the other side would not violate the rules of engagement and halt when the white flags loom!

 

دع عنك لومي Ùلن يجديك منÙعة

Ùمذهبي لست ابغي Ùيه تبديلا

لا اقبل الدين Ø­Ùظا عن ائمتكم

واترك العقل ماسورا ومغلولا

 

وان اتيت لهم تبغي لما زعموا

ادلة ابت الاÙواه تدليلا

لا يملكون دليلا ينطقون به

Ùاينا كان عند الحق مخذولا؟

You see, you conveniently create imaginary scenario that does not exist to advance your argument. Who’s against reason? Who embraces the blind faith and dwells in ignorance? Perhaps these verses are more fitting to you than to us as you fanatically, and with strong zeal, follow the methods of Hume and Kant!

 

And perhaps the words of that wise man who once encountered Jaaxid are more fitting and appropriate to describe the worthlessness of your fickle writing.

كأنك كندر ÙÙŠ ذنب كبش

يدلدل هكذا والكبش يمشي

[Baashi]

Mutakalim, I went back and reread the initial post and subsequent exchanges excluding what other posters had to say about the subject. Because I was at work multitasking several tasks (including engaging you and others), I didn’t get enough time to refute your self-asserting write-ups or pen a very serious rebuttal. Therefore I felt necessary to post a comprehensive write-up on the topic (it proved to be a moving target).

 

I will limit this write-up to several important points that I thought were central to the discussion. However, I won’t dignify your cartoon-like view of the debate section/debaters with a response. You seem to be full of yourself assuming of an air of superiority hence it will be fitting to ignore the bulk of your post where you veered to different direction.

 

I will post three write-ups (see the next three posts): I.One for your original post and your subsequent clarification. II. The other one for the straw man charge and your lecture-like self-assertion lessons of what argument is supposed to be. III.And finally I will address what logic is and what logic is not and all that mentioned about it in the context of this discussion.

 

That said, it is always good to know your audience. Prudence requires not to assume about that which you don’t have knowledge. In this case it’s not prudent to assume that all cyber characters are well-versed in philosophy. Likewise not all enlightened people (or educated folks as you put it) are subject-experts in this discipline and its various specialized areas.

 

Let me put myself with the layman league for philosophy is not my specialty. My write-ups are just my views on the subject at hand. I’m of the opinion that having extensive knowledge in philosophy under one’s belt or being well versed with its speculative and rhetorical debating skills does not give one an exclusive license to decide what is valid and what is not valid argument (I will expand this later).

 

Braeking it up for you...look below

[Baashi]

I.

The trigger - initial post revisited.

 

I won’t quote you for the simple reason that we often times say something and sound as if we are saying completely different thing. Words are slippery for sure not to mention the fact that language is inexact. We Somalis have a saying that goes like Hadal waa margi hadba docdii loo jiido u jiidma. The important thing is the meaning that one can infer from what one posts without reading things into it. Intaa waa afeef

 

Let me say at the outset that I don’t have any problem conceding where you have a point. What I don’t want to do is engage exchange where the topic is shifting or the target of the discussion is moving constantly. From what I gather you posted a topic with very daring name: Martyrs of thought. The body of the initial write up consisted of “factsâ€: how group of philosophers had died. The last two sentence of the post were interesting and perhaps telling: “ Such was the end of the soldiers battling the seige of truth. Indeed, the plant of philosophy requires no less†.

 

From these two sentences, one could arguably infer that there is a correlation between “martyrs of thought†= “soldiers battling†= the dead men and the “martyrdom†designation. Or one could simply see the whole post as an incoherent thought penned by boastful “philosopher kingâ€. The latter your highness is a sin and I wouldn’t stoop that low to dismiss a pro with your caliper especially when in his home turf . Your subsequent posts in response to my playful challenge perplexed me even more to say the least.

 

Merriam-Webster dictionary gives the word martyr three meanings: 1 : a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion 2 : a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle 3 : VICTIM; especially : a great or constant sufferer. There are an unanswered questions when one puts the whole post together. Number two seems to fit but...

 

On the one hand, you insist on not having any argument (semantics was a convenient shelter). On the other hand, you stated that you “willfully†chose the title to advance the proposition that these philosophers were “martyrs†of sort not because of the facts you listed in your initial post but they “sacrificed†a whole lot to one principle and then you went on to spell it out. Add that with last turn you took in your last post where you said you didn’t explain your rational of labeling philosophers as martyrs.

 

Well I don’t know what to make of it. If the post was incoherent (loosely stated facts with implying concluding sentences and unrelated title), if you didn’t have any argument, if you didn’t explain your rational for labeling (and labeling you did) philosophers as martyrs – by the way you could (if you didn’t) and made the discussion more clearer and useful than it had been so far – then I discard all the preceding posts as far as the exchange goes and await a new post in which you make a coherent clarification of your first post.

[Baashi]

II.

The straw man charge under magnifying glasses

 

It’s always good to get your opponent to agree premises of your argument before proceeding any father. I stand by that challenge although I concede the fact that I didn’t make sure whether you were willing to defend the correlation between the title, post itself and the statements you penned at the end of the post. Had I known that you would hide behind the empty hair-splitting technicalities I would've first gotten you to agree with what I inferred from the post is in fact what you intended to get across.

 

As to the charge that my challenge didn’t amount to an argument according to the standards, I wouldn't agree with that assessmant! This standard of itself is a point of contention, of course. We’ll get into that in my last post on logic later. It suffices to say for now that even if this standard is brought to bear still my argument stands unscathed! You see, notwithstanding the hair-splitting semantics, assertion is simply a statement of opinions in which one declares a proposition.

 

In fact I maintain that proposition is the meaning of the statement, not the precise arrangement of words used to convey that meaning. In any case the list (in the form of 1 thru 5) was part of the statement (assertions) not stand alone list of nouns as you misleadingly distorted it by presenting list of fruits. That was very disingenuous of you!

 

In any case, if this was a trap and you “willfully†wanted to confuse the subject you have done very well for yourself! Bravo! It’s high time for you though to come out from the fortified bunker and pen a simple, concise, straightforward rational for the correlation between the title, facts you stated, and the last two statements.

[Baashi]

III.

On logic - the heart of the matter - raw meat on the menu.

 

This is the heart of our disagreement. You are somehow under the illusion that I am against reasoning as a tool to analyze problems. I’ve said before and I will say again I concur with you and others that reasoning as an innate human cognitive faculty is essential in reaching conclusions. In that context it is universal as most people are endowed by their Creator the ability to think and to reason. That much is agreed my friend!

 

Where we seem to differ is the standard or methodology called logic defined as the science of the formal principles of reasoning. Let me try to be as clear as possible so that the subsequent discussion can be meaningful and useful as well. I will start with what logic is not.

 

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. Logic is simply a method or rather science invented by a fallible man, Aristotle to be precise. Furthermore, logic is not the only method to communicate, discuss or debate. Debaters can simply decide whether logic is the right tool for the subject under discussion (I have metaphysics realm in mind here).

 

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. There are many metaphysical questions that philosophers had penned their speculative opinions but could not reach universal definitive answer!

 

You demanded examples and I shall give you several examples. Corrections are welcomed.

 

On Religious Knowledge.

 

Aquinas makes a distinction between faith and reason.

 

William James emphasizes the role of the will in believing and knowing.

 

Russel follows the way of the agnostic.

 

On Existence of God

 

Freud argues that religion is the product of wish.

 

Anselm formulated the ontological argument by a purely intellectual method.

 

Aquinas offered five proofs from motion, cause, necessary, degrees of perfection, and design.

 

Hume held that evil refutes the argument from design.

 

Kant said that there are limits to rational knowledge in religion so that there is no possibility of rational proof of God’s existence.

 

On Soul and Body

 

Descartes said that body and soul (mind) are two quite different substances.

 

Ryle replies that Descartes’s dualism is a “myth†which rests upon a serious “mistakeâ€.

 

On Death and Beyond

 

Plato believed that only the soul is real and that the soul is immortal.

 

Hume not only rejected the doctrine of immortality but also denied that there is a self that can in any way be discovered.

 

Kierkegaard believed that certain kinds of truth can be known only individually, subjectively, and immortality is one of them.

 

May I remind you, by the way, that I am no relativists lest you think along these lines. 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!

 

In math or physical sciences logic is perfectly fine as the applied subjects are demonstrable, verifiable, testable, and even controllable. In metaphysics, however, I, as a person, do not think speculations/opinions of these enlightened folks are good enough for me to base the validity of my beliefs. Just because this particular standard was not strictly followed, does not mean absolute universal law is being violated! They, speculative philosophers that is, usually end up engaging in circular reasoning (reasoning in circles) and infinite digression.

 

As someone who made up his mind about these metaphysical questions, I use different methodology than the “standard†one. Mine is simple and very useful for me:

 

1. Guidance of Allah

2. light of reason

3. Testimony of senses

[Sincere]

Well I don’t know what to make of it. If the post was incoherent (loosely stated facts with implying concluding sentences and unrelated title), if you didn’t have any argument, if you didn’t explain your rational for labeling (and labeling you did) philosophers as martyrs – by the way you could (if you didn’t) and made the discussion more clearer and useful than it had been so far

Bashi, if you may permit me to say you’re asking the wrong question. The post was a fallacious and intentionally misleading. His whole post from title to body was a Fallacy of Ambiguity (Equivocation, and a good one at that) The word martyr he used in the title was describing their devotion,time and the sacrifices they made for the sake of principle. The word martyr in the body takes a whole different meaning when he listed their means of death. Initially I was under the impression it was a case of “manipulating†semantics, but know I’m really baffled. This ought be the real question!

 

The initial post coming from the self-proclaimed philosopher king, who has impeccable command of the English language, and a knack for unveiling other’s fallacies; leads me to “beg the question†why would he flagrantly commit such a fallacy? Was it perhaps to invoke discourse in his field of expertise and mercilessly dismember the layman? Or perhaps was it to create an opportunity to derive personal pleasure by confusing people and pointing their errors out with “humpty dumpty†analogies? Or perhaps it was a simple error, and he could have avoided all this confusion by simply retracting the title (but he did say it was willfull..hmm)

 

This was more a riddle than a post, and if I am duly wrong and righteous without understanding, then I stand corrected.

[Mutakalim]

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)

[Baashi]

Mutakalim,

Let’s take this thing one by one shall we! Let’s first define the terms for the sake of the discussion. I'm hesitant to proceed lest we are using the key terms here loosely. Here is how I understood the terms in my write-ups

 

Reasoning is a mental process or the act of using our innate cognitive faculty (conscious intellectual activity) to drive a conclusion from certain premise.

 

Logic, on the other hand, is a known (constructed and defined by wise men) method in which the validity of argument, premises, inference, and practical conditions for its determination are weighed. Logic encompasses rules that govern the making and evaluation of arguments.

 

That is how I understood the terms. Is that how you understood them as well?

 

Let's get these misconceptions out of the way first.