WJ: "All realities are personal realities, these are constructed entirely from knowledge based upon historical information."

In my humble opinion, reality is not a construct. It is that which is.

Opinions are personal constructs.

DG: "I wanna talk about the basis. I do not know what you call it. Is there a statement which we can make sure it's undoubtedly true? (to start from?)"

I think we can take the principles of logic as undoubtedly true. Certainly if we can not trust logic, there is nothing we can trust.

But in general, I am not looking for apodictic certainty. Rather I am looking for practical certainty. As C. S. Peirce put it...

"We cannot begin with complete doubt. We must begin with all the prejudices which we actually have when we enter upon the study of philosophy. These prejudices are not to be dispelled by a maxim, for they are things which it does not occur to us can be questioned. Hence this initial skepticism will be a mere self-deception, and not real doubt; and no one who follows the Cartesian method will ever be satisfied until he has formally recovered all those beliefs which in form he has given up. It is, therefore, as useless a preliminary as going to the North Pole would be in order to get to Constantinople by coming down regularly upon a meridian. A person may, it is true, in the course of his studies, find reason to doubt what he began by believing; but in that case he doubts because he has a positive reason for it, and not on account of the Cartesian maxim. Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."

~ Charles S. Peirce; "Some Consequences of Four Incapacities;" ***Journal of Speculative Philosophy*** (1868) 2, 140-157.

So much 'philosophy,' now days is based upon artificial, feigned doubt. The 'hard sciences' do not extoll doubt. A scientist starts out with a hypothesis to explore, not because he is pretending to doubt it, but because he really does doubt it... or at least believes that it is a question which deserves a real answer derived in some genuinely meaningful way. The 'scientist' who proves that water is wet or that air is lighter than wood will never get his research published, nor should he.

Yet in philosophy we tolerate and even encourage people to assume views merely because they phrase their beliefs so as to leverage some feigned doubt. For example, one may say that every man's beliefs are 'true,' merely because he believes them. It is no wonder that modern philosophy has become a veritable circus. To quote from Peirce...

"The same formalism appears in the Cartesian criterion, which amounts to this: 'Whatever I am clearly convinced of, is true.' If I were really convinced, I should have done with reasoning and should require no test of certainty. But thus to make single individuals absolute judges of truth is most pernicious. The result is that metaphysicians will all agree that metaphysics has reached a pitch of certainty far beyond that of the physical sciences; -- only they can agree upon nothing else. In sciences in which men come to agreement, when a theory has been broached it is considered to be on probation until this agreement is reached. After it is reached, the question of certainty becomes an idle one, because there is no one left who doubts it."

~ Charles S. Peirce; ibid.

How then, do we arrive at practical certainty? I would contrast my approach to that of René Descartes. He wished to construct philosophy on an apodictic basis, similar to that employed in mathematics. Thus, a philosophical argument is a single thread of reasoning from apodictic premises to apodictic conclusions. In mathematics, such an approach works beautifully. But it has proven to be a disaster in philosophy. To quote from Peirce...

"Philosophy ought to imitate the successful sciences in its methods, so far as to proceed only from tangible premisses which can be subjected to careful scrutiny, and to trust rather to the multitude and variety of its arguments than to the conclusiveness of any one. Its reasoning should not form a chain which is no stronger than its weakest link, but a cable whose fibers may be ever so slender, provided they are sufficiently numerous and intimately connected."

~ Charles S. Peirce; ibid.

So much 'philosophy' today is based upon a single chain of reasoning. Such a chain is no stronger than its weakest link. A philosopher who is convinced that he has found the truth based on such a chain is just fooling himself.

Philosophers ought to be constructing not single chains, but veritable tapestries, in which no individual thread is essential. Admittedly, I am proposing a completely different view of philosophy than any that has existed since the time of Descartes.

Edmund Husserl, a true believer in Cartesian doubt had to admit that Descartes' effect on philosophy had failed to generate a unified philosophy, worthy of the name...

"The splintering of present-day philosophy, with its perplexed activity, sets us thinking. When we attempt to view western philosophy as a unitary science, its decline since the middle of the nineteenth century is unmistakable. The comparative unity that it had in previous ages, in its aims, its problems and methods, has been lost. When, with the beginning of modern times, religious belief was becoming more and more externalized as a lifeless convention, men of intellect were lifted by a new belief, their great belief in an autonomous philosophy and science. The whole of human culture was to be guided and illuminated by scientific insights and thus reformed, as new and autonomous.

"But meanwhile this belief too has begun to languish. Not without reason. Instead of a unitary living philosophy, we have a philosophical literature growing beyond all bounds and almost without coherence. Instead of a serious discussion among conflicting theories that, in their very conflict, demonstrate the intimacy with which they belong together, the commonness of their underlying convictions, and an unswerving belief in a true philosophy, we have a pseudo-reporting and a pseudo-criticizing, a mere semblance of philosophizing seriously with and for one another. This hardly attests a mutual study carried on with a consciousness of responsibility, in the spirit that caracterizes serious collaboration and an intention to produce Objectively valid results. 'Objectively [objektiv] valid results' the phrase, after all, signifies nothing but results that have been refined by mutual criticism and that now withstand every criticism. But how could actual study and actual collaboration be possible, where there are so many philosophers and almost equally many philosophies? To be sure, we still have philosophical congresses. The philosophers meet but, unfortunately, not the philosophies. The philosophies lack the unity of a mental space in which they might exist for and act on one another. It may be that, within each of the many different 'schools' or 'lines of thought,' the situation is somewhat better. Still, with the existence of these in isolation, the total philosophical present is essentially as we have described it."

~ Edmund Husserl ; ***Cartesian Meditations;*** Introduction; "§2 The necessity of a radical new beginning of philosophy"

DG"How we can say the statement is true? on which basis?"

Only on the basis of accepting common methodology, weather it is logic postulates or scientific experiment or divine scripture or self experience or combination of all etc.

The statement thought field interacts with environment in different ways; therefore limitations for each basis of truth reveals itself in some levels of analysis considering consciousness

Your question implies unsolvable universality problem

In the name of Allah

Hello Niz NI

"Logic postulates" (Of course, but how much do they correspond to the realities?)

"Scientific experiment" (without interpretations that nowadays exist, I think.)

"Divine scripture" (No problem but one may prove that they exist, I mean existence of revelation and its representative.)

How about "human common essence -> common basic understandings"? (Didn't you drop something important and more basic?)

NN: "Your question implies unsolvable universality problem"

Exactly, but maybe solvable, if not no one can go further!

In the name of Allah

Hello Bill

~ "So much 'philosophy' today is based upon a single chain of reasoning. Such a chain is no stronger than its weakest link. A philosopher who is convinced that he has found the truth based on such a chain is just fooling himself."

So lets find the weakest link!

~ "Philosophers ought to be constructing not single chains, but veritable tapestries, in which no individual thread is essential. "

Not bad, veritable tapestries!

Of course, Still no one has proved that a strong chian does not exist! But it helps.

DaneshjuyeG"Still no one has proved that a strong chian does not exist! But it helps."

And no one has proved that it does...

Notice that for correctness of a statement there is individual level and social level

Both interact with each other by give and take mechanism in a neutral or biased environment...

If you discovered the basis you claim for yourself; how many could you convince to accept it...then to follow it...after that to call for it?!

These days most(not all) people believe in experimental sciences just for their technological benifits...

The philosophy behind this is a widespread debate field(even Einstein didn't accept the formalism of Quantum Mechanics and had shaken it with EPR paradox)

this should be probably with relation to moral philosophy (ethics) or with relation to Logic or metaphysics. this would be in relation to the principles followed in this key subjects.

Beyond mathematical and logical truths, I would suggest that there is only one thing that any sentient can know for certain and that is the truth of their own sentience. Descartes was correct when he pointed out that the only Truth that he could be certain of was "I think, therefore, I am". Socrates was correct when he said "I know nothing".

The "Truth" is not out there and Uncertainty is the only certainty. Indeed,so strong is this "Uncertainty Principle", that god can never know if god is "God" (or Allah).

I discuss it in some detail, here: www.kasarik.com/The-Divine-Principle.php

GK: "god can never know if god is 'God' (or Allah)."

I wonder whether god ever asked your opinion of that question...

MCMH: "this should be probably with relation to moral philosophy (ethics)..."

Looking at the title for this thread, I see that it is asking about...

(1) "correctness of an statement" and

(2) "goodness or badness of something."

These are two very different kinds of judgments. I had initially answered regarding the first question. In that context, I said that I am not looking for apodictic certainty, but for practical certainty.

Regarding the second question... I do not know even practical certainty is possible. I think that men ought to follow judgments that are probable. At times one may even follow a path that is less probable than another... as long as it is probable in itself.

I seem to recall that Peirce wrote that the collective moral judgments of society should be respected. I do not have an exact quote, however.

Socrates based his ideas on the four virtues: wisdom, self-control, courage and sound judgment. I think his words are as sound today as ever.

Aristotle held that in addition to the written laws that may exist in any given society there is an unwritten law which the gods have established. Ideally man's written laws should approximate the unwritten law.

Aristotle also proposed that virtue is the mean between extremes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aurea_mediocritas

Cicero adopted Aristotle's idea of the unwritten law in what he called natural law... that some things are right or wrong simply because of the nature of things.

English common law seems to be an attempt to allow the spirit of the unwritten law prevail in the face of the written law.

Also, I should note that Aristotle held that the object of the good life is happiness. The good man is one who has lived in such a way as to attain true happiness.

He held that philosophers generally said that there are three possible ways for man to attain happiness. The first way is through pleasure (or the avoidance of pain); the second way is through public service; the third way is through acquiring wisdom.

I think it all rests on a logical flow of the statement, the metaphysical coherence and its agreement with the natural law. If a statement made by a person assumes these three then one is bound to find correctness in them

In the name of Allah

Hello Niz NI and Others

Niz NI: "And no one has proved that it does..."

Maybe someone has proved.

Niz NI: "Notice that for correctness of a statement there is individual level and social level

Both interact with each other by give and take mechanism in a neutral or biased environment..."

It can be modeled as a neural network model of what is behind!

Niz NI: "These days most (not all) people believe in experimental sciences just for their technological benifits...

The philosophy behind this is a widespread debate field (even Einstein didn't accept the formalism of Quantum Mechanics and had shaken it with EPR paradox)"

O.K, Also classical mechanics is beneficial, but a good philosophy does not lead to approve it as a describer of the nature (better to say world of creation).

A good philosophy might say that, it's a model of what happens, in its limits.

How about trying to lighten a bulb in the very "Elephant Room" which Molavi (Rumi) says?

Niz NI: "If you discovered the basis you claim for yourself; how many could you convince to accept it...then to follow it...after that to call for it?!"

Very good, the more basic the statement the more accept it, so we start from a dominant basic one.

I should point something out; there are some basic things that some people do not accept.

What should we do here?

For example (a kind of extreme level of misunderstanding):

One comes and says killing an innocent is good.

What took him to this misunderstanding?

I think his behavior.

I think his behavior against his basic understandings.

But at the bottom of his heart, he knows that he is wrong.

Another example:

One comes and says God does not exist.

What took him to this misunderstanding?

He is used to a daily life without thinking.

At first, he cannot claim "does not exist"; he may be silent about it.

e.g., at a very basic level, about creation:

"If you accept that something (for example yourself) exists, you have accepted that the (your) creator exists"

Materialists say that, the creator is the nature; they may go further to their beginning of the nature the so called Big Bang.

In a philosopher point of view, "himself aware of his being", "nature" and "Big Bang" are the same question of existence and creation.

A highly skeptical person, if trying to find his/her source of problem, may find it in doubt of his/her existence.

So if any person enters "The room of philosophy" at first I would ask him/her "Do you exist?"

Actually, "I exist" is a basic understanding of human beings. No need to tell yourself "I think, so I exist"

Something else, how about a cow? Doesn't it exist? It cannot think!

Basic understandings go weaker and weaker as a person behaves against it.

So I define Fitrat on the understandings of a person who has behaved according to it. (The point is here!)

Not only understanding is strong for them, but also emotion about realities. (We are talking about a human, not!? Not everything is logics!)

Musongong Che Mfombong Howard is right.

So philosophies (depending on "who is saying the statements") interact with moralities and... .

When is reality, actuality? Here it comes to be answered!

Realities are based on beliefs, How are the beliefs achieved?

If we start from a common dominant basic understanding (which is only one) we can go further on understanding the outside. So in my context Reality is Actuality and it originates from common understanding. (Which beliefs? Oh, Of course you are sharp!)

It's here, when I say

The more someone knows his inside, the more he can go further on understanding of the outside.

Actually I think I should use a better terminology instead of "Philosophy", which also covers the story of philosophy even at its abstract level.

To me philosophy is like surgery to be used for those who have made themselves not to understand some realities. But not everybody needs surgery, some need a few pills!

"A better terminology", do you know why?

One reason: because some people have strong understandings and (maybe) there is no need to start from a very basic statement for them; except when they want to know more about "Where I am from, Why I am here, Where I will go", and actually as a Muslim they should think on them.

I think many problems come out of improper starting definitions.

In the name of Allah

Hello

It seems we need to raise this question again!

Don't pass by this question carelessly!

So where do you take your statements from?

DGP: I take statements about GOD and the SELF from within me. My inner understandings and my inward journey provides me all the answers. And then by look at and observations from the animate and inanimate existences.

@SunithaN"I take statements about GOD and the SELF from within me"

Being independent is something and thinking that inner understanding is a source of knowledge is something else...

We belong to our accidental environmental "birth and culture"

When ones inner/outer contradictions and conflicts emerge he/she shall have to revise all his sources of knowledge for the sake of solving his contradictions...

ONLY in this position he/she would improve his sources of knowledge and techniques of solutions

Niz Ni: "Being independent is something and thinking that inner understanding is a source of knowledge is something else..."

something, thinking, inner understandings and knowledge are all same at one point of your lifetime you come to know; that it is - we who have drawn a circle around us and were scared to come out of it due to ego, fear, society and money earnings.

Niz Ni: We belong to our accidental environmental "birth and culture"

That's the truth we each have come to understand. Its a chance to know being with. A live relay.We put ourselves behind the bars for the sake of escapism and lament on - we belong to our accidental environmental birth and culture.

Lion species have birth and culture like wise all species have birth and culture. They all have same culture. we too have same culture but in the name of different religion they have becom different. for me every other religion is nothing but a every other person with different names used for identification. that's it.

Niz Ni: "When ones inner/outer contradictions and conflicts emerge he/she shall have to revise all his sources of knowledge for the sake of solving his contradictions...

ONLY in this position he/she would improve his sources of knowledge and techniques of solutions"

True that is what is called as inward journey. This journey to make one must have guts to leave one's ego and must experiment or re-think 1000th time to know the truth from what so far has been said by all in all religious and all in all philosophers. That's the task each must take. I may be Hitler or I may be M.K. Gandhi. I do not know. I may be under the falsification. So take a mindful role of a Hitler and if you are so in your mind study him and come out to feel as M.K Gandhi. Study and feel. this may take several yrs or months. Like wise all of your knowledge (which is book reading, listening, watching), based on that that inner feel of Hitler or Gandhi tell you who you are. Like wise corrections may happen or may not. So what. Provided who you are. Its your thought and a way for realization. this is the beginning of inward journey

#H1-588. If i make a statement:

1. Should it accord with commonsense?

2. Shouldn't?

3. I think i am not exposed to any other basics.

4. It is possible i include science/knowledge in commonsense. (say, = senses and sense).

5. If you say that i am talking about my state of knowledge and my commonsense, you can be right. Worse, can i be confusing myself in this apparant mingling up of commonsense, impressionistics, knowledge, and philosophy?

#H1-589. Nowadays, i am wondering: is that possible to pursue purpose, commonweal, "higher ethics", logic, or even unattachment, without some sort of connection to self- need/ self- satisfaction? Would this be in turn connectible with selfishness? So i am stubling upon some region where self-interest stubles upon regions where it can acquire acceptability? (No lesser reasons should confer such acceptability.)

Philosopher A can say: "all triangles have 3 sides". This is true by definition, without having to survey all the triangles of the world. No experience needed...just the definition of a triangle.

Philosopher B can say: " The existance of a ruling class is natural and harmonious with nature". This however is an interpretation and must be scrutinized beyond its definitions through experience. When we try to decide whether or not this philosopher is correct we must consider his influences and his predisposition. What drives his assertion? What does he have to gain or loss? How clear is his veiw of things? etc.

science is theory and practice thro' experimentation; so also philosophy. It is also a science with a theory and practice. Here the result varies depending on the personality. Personality of a person depends on genetic as well as environmental. Being a Hitler character (by genetic means) can be changed over a period of time into M.K. Gandhi-like thro' philosophical understandings and practice and experimentation thro' SELF UNDERSTANDINGS'.

Understanding the SELF is the beginning. That itself can be inculcated in a child by the age of 8 - 10 years. At this age the knowing of the SELF can happen for the betterment of the SELF and his/her immeidate surroundings that is parents, teachers, friends. A child of such SELF observes and understands nature thro' understandings. One must not inculcate in a child that particular religion. It must be left to him. This must happen by all the parents who belong to 'so-and-so religion. After all religion is an accidental to whom we are born to. Allow the child to expose to all religious people. Let him understand the way he understands science subjects without parental interference.

That's it. We shall leave a better world for our children.

@Larry Carlson"why many parents, if not most, would not dream of not trying to inculcate their particular religion or political views.."

Maybe because we like our surroundings to be like us...a psychological way to be adequated and harmonized with our beliefs...conformation biased!

The common basis, 'fitrat' in the language of Gomnam (Persian, Urdu or Arabic I think) is a good concept. But, can 'fitrat' be uttered fully with the help of our languages? Will it always remain felt, but, never said properly?

Anirban Mukhopadhyay @"The common basis, 'fitrat'"

Fitrat means the universal physiological innate of humankind, regardless of any culture, to feel the need of supreme power of every thing...

It was proven by neurotheology...Google Dr. Andrew Newberg

It was also proved by Anthropology...

In which book has it been proven?

The title"Why God won't go away", by Andrew Newberg et al.

Larry Carlson@"I doubt that it proves that everyone by virtue of human nature wants to make it or that therefore there must be someone there to greet them when they get there"

I agree in general, but restricting with the definition of "Fitrat" I posted only, meaning that innate feeling of need...no more or less, Newberg brought some solid scientific evidence, not to consider unscientific elaborations which was stated after that...

Larry Carlson

@"emotional objectivity"

This is the essence of the correct belief; it is prior need for unbiased path to truth, though the term it self is confusing for joining to contrasts: hidden emotion and observable objectivity...

@"The many prophets claimed to have had religious experiences, but until one can help everyone else experience something and help them apply it to their own lives, a religious experience is not considered general knowledge in the usual sense of the word.."

This actually prophets main work, not necessarily by showing universal miracles but intentionally by inducing proper or eigen proof for the interested person who has emotional objectivity...

And this makes religion more pure self responsibility and one owns decision, not just cultural ID to defend it blindly

@"I am reluctant to condone the visions of prophets associated with any one religion on the grounds that the visions, often rewritten or invented by creative church fathers and scholars years after the fact,are used to enforce the moral dogma of specific social groups, with the result, as I have mentioned before, of violent religious conflict."

You are right...as long as what is written was "years after the fact" which is not for a single scripture(Qur'an)...

Also history shows "non religious" violent conflict "much more" than religious,

yet we didn't find noticeable decrease of violent conflicts through out the last two centuries after avoiding religious perspectives in educational school systems all over the world...

In the name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful

Hello again everybody

How are you Niz Nl?

Niz Nl : "Fitrat means the universal physiological innate of humankind, regardless of any culture, to feel the need of supreme power of everything..."

Dear Niz Nl, I disagree with the definition of 'Fitrat' you wrote, to be intended of my definition.

I can remember, once in the past, I told you that the definition of 'Fitrat' in Shia Muslim Philosophy is much more than this.

Let me explain it in a different way,

What human beings share in common about basic understandings and basic feelings, to be SEEN by one's heart is (I think) called Fitrat.

(Take care of the word “SEEN”.)

There are many books written about 'Fitrat'.

I might make time to take some of it here, in future, if God is willing.

Larry Carlson@"...those who suggest that their particular culture's scriptures are divinely inspired because the prophets (cultural religiouis heroes) mentioned therein have had similar religious experiences is not very convincing."

I agree completely...I hope you didn't think that I depend on this kind of "common" pseudo-proof; if so I'll be thanking you to show me where in any of my comments

Hello Daneshjuye Gomnam Phil.:

My definition is taken directly from scientific sources(Dr.Newberg book"Why God won't go away"), which is also matching correct hadiths of prophet Muhammad(pbuh), not any philosophical conclusion with all my respect.

What you pointed about "SEEN" is still not clear for me, if it is popularly seen can you give an example?

I'd like to ask William Jackson some questions.

Hello William Jackson

How are you?

Are you a skeptic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

{

Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. One view is the objection that there is very little or no knowledge at all—skepticism.

}

Do your philosophical statements have a kind of hierarchy?

You state some statements (sometimes carrying the words "It seems"); can you prove a statement (any)?

Isn't skepticism self-contradictious?

So, if you are skeptic,

Can you state any statement?

How can you explain your being?

Aren't you circulating in your definitions (, as your image has something to do with it!)?

Then answer this, where did that circulation come from?

I remember the time I discussed "Smoke is creating Smoke" with Peter John Palms.

Do you know Schrödinger's cat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

Of course, you have the right to put the same questions to:

1) A philosopher living where I live.

2) A 10-year-old boy living far away from civilization.

“Circulating with definitions”

Niz Nl: "My definition is taken directly from ..."

2 choices:

1) Assume my definition.

2) We can look up Quran to find the correct definition; and I will accept, if I find out that I am wrong.

Niz Nl: "What you pointed about "SEEN" is still not clear for me"

Try some to define "to see".

Then you will understand me better.

Niz Nl: "if it is popularly seen can you give an example?"

No problem,

Try to generalize this example to undestand me better:

To be truthful is good.

To lie is bad.

Just (the common basic understanding of Just) is good (convinces my heart).

Unjust is bad.

What is being SEEN then?

Hello Anirban Mukhopadhyay

How do you do?

AM: "What is being SEEN then?"

We have 3 concepts:

1) Human

2) To see

3) The thing to be seen

Take the general definition of "to see" into philosophy room, so that it can be analyzed and purified.

Daneshjuye Gomnam Phil.@Definition of "Fitrah"

According to your request here is the definition of Fitra in Qur'an, Sura30:Aaya30{So set you your face towards the religion, Hanif(worship none but Allah Alone). Allah's Fitrah with which He has created mankind. No change let there be in Kalq-illah(the religion of Allah): that is the straight religion but most of men know not.}

What you pointed for the meaning of "SEEN by heart" with regard to good and bad is well known "in general" as abstract universal ethical concept, but when applied socially it bifurcates with different cultures...

@Daneshjuye Gomnam Phil: "Fitrat means the universal physiological innate of humankind, regardless of any culture, to feel the need of supreme power of everything". Niz is correct in her definition of fitra and supported by a tradition whereby the Prophet (PBUH) is narrated to say like this "Every child is born with right fitra (i.e., the universal physiological innate of humankind) but these are parents who make them Jews and Christians" Thus to say fitra is "regardless of any culture" is not correct.

@ Larry Carlson: Please tell me how many people were killed in religious conflicts throughout known history of humans and how many people were killed in search of markets, colonies, racial conflict and ongoing conflicts to either capture or controll resources for well-being of a small population. If you don't have exact data I tell you that alone during Second World War about 10 milion soldiers and civilians were killed.

Thanks Niz NI.

As you mentioned,

The Holy Quran uses the word as a noun and verb:

فَأَقِمْ وَجْهَكَ لِلدِّينِ حَنِيفًا فِطْرَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا لَا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ ذَلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ

Therefore set your face to the religion purely, the upright creation upon which He originated people.

There is no changing of the creation of Allah. This is the valuable religion, although most people do not know_Quran 30:30

I think "لَا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ" refers to "فِطْرَةَ اللَّهِ".

So there is no changing of the creation of Allah.

قَالَ رَبُّنَا الَّذِي أَعْطَى كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلْقَهُ ثُمَّ هَدَى

He said: our lord is He who gave to everything its creation, then guided it (to its goal)_Quran 20:50

وَنَفْسٍ وَمَا سَوَّاهَا

فَأَلْهَمَهَا فُجُورَهَا وَتَقْوَاهَا

قَدْ أَفْلَحَ مَن زَكَّاهَا

وَقَدْ خَابَ مَن دَسَّاهَا

By the soul and Him who made it perfect,

And He inspired it to understand what is right and wrong for it;

He is indeed successful who purifies it,

And he indeed failed who corrupts it_Quran 91:7 to 10

I think my definition is consistent with Quran (I consider the above realities behind the word "Fitrat").

I define "Fitrat" with, almost, removing effects of culture and instruction, this way:

All of us, human beings admit some basic things.

No matter in what culture and civilization we are.

These understandings show themselves cleaner at childhood.

Basic understandings go weaker and weaker as a person behaves against it.

So I define Fitrat based on the understandings of a person who has behaved according to it during his or her life.

Niz Nl: "What you pointed for the meaning of "SEEN by heart" with regard to good and bad is well known "in general" as abstract universal ethical concept, but when applied socially it bifurcates with different cultures..."

The questions are:

1.Where do these "ethical concepts” (sets) come from?

2.What do different cultures have in common about that? (Intersection of the sets)

3.Is there a COMMON BASIC (not necessarily simple) Subset of them?

(Is there a self-consistent and inside-outside-consistent basic set to start with?)

4.Where does this COMMON BASIC subset come from?

5.Which subset exists since childhood? and what is its intersection with our COMMON BASIC Subset?

Nice list. It shows how religion was used to instill and enforce loyalty in the effort to conquer and defend resources. The wars were not fought simply because there were religious differences; the religious differences were used to fight the wars.

Hello Mohammad Firoz Khan

I cannot undestand the relation of "the universal physiological innate of humankind" with those verses of Quran. maybe my English is not that good!

Any way I guess my definition is consistent, if you disagree, I can call it Fitrat_2. (It's not much important.)

Take care of the questions above.

Thanks William Jackson

I should survey the elements of your philosophy.

@ WJ: All realities are personal realities,

- these are constructed entirely from knowledge

- based upon historical information.

It means we are not real, I cannot appreciate or condemn your reality, after all your reality is yours and mine is miine, then there is no univeralism. If a woman experiences labour pain it is her reality, other women cannot know what she has suffered or a man is killed in war, the loss and pain experienced by his dear ones and no meanings to others, therefore go on killing without looking back a feeling what loss and pain, the dear ones killed by yourside go through as their reality is theirs not yours. This legitimates war and destruction. A movie "Budha" also gave such a meassage that your truth is yours and my truth is mine.

@Greg Kasarik: True, Descrates after mediation reached to the conclusion " "I think, therefore, I am" implying consciousness nothing else more. But Sir, you also have to mention in addition to this to famous Proessor [I have forgotten his name] who during the conference stood up and raising his left hand said, "it ismy left hand" and then again raising his right hand said, "it is my right hand" thereby proving physical existence aart from consciouness. "Beyond mathematical and logical truths, I would suggest that there is only one thing that any sentient can know for certain and that is the truth of their own sentience." May be, but the question is whose mathemetics and logic, yours own or universally accepted. It means one know the mental constructs of others as mathematics and logic is human creation to understand reality apart from their own sentience.

Therefore, the statement by learned contributor, "Goodness or badness, correctness or incorrectness of knowledge and experience depends upon the wholeness of the views, universalism of the experiences." is full of wisdom.

@ Larry Carlson: "Though this sounds good in theory...one has to wonder why many parents, if not most, would not dream of not trying to inculcate their particular religion or political views." My story is different born in a religious family with strict disciline in religious matter, I started with denial and end with submission. When truth comes falsehood susides. Denial is childish and accetance/submission is maturity. As to impart a course in a military for all out war against Islam not only against terrorist is childish. It is concentrated on self not universalism that is required by maturity.

I am discussing 2 issues at the same time here.

1) possiblity of self-cosistency of a set.

2) Intersection of the sets

Oh, Sorry

I don't peruse Larry Carlson's discussions.

There is a link to my bio at www.glennborchardt.com.

Hello again William Jackson

Oh, you must be kidding!

Don't you have a lot of hidden assumptions!?

Did you twist my questions?

Didn't you gather sometimes contradictions thoughts in your mind?

Maybe; The answer is with you!

Error theory is built by three principles:

There are no moral features in this world, nothing is right or wrong.

Therefore no moral judgments are true; however

Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things.

Thus we always lapse into error when thinking in moral terms. We are trying to state the truth when we make moral judgments. But since there is no moral truth, all of our moral claims are mistaken. Hence the error. These three principles lead to the conclusion that there is no moral knowledge. Knowledge requires truth. If there is no moral truth, there can be no moral knowledge. Thus moral values are make-believe.

Constructivism can be described as a theory that deals with the way people create meaning of the world through a series of individual constructs. Constructs are the different types of filters we choose to place over our realities to change our reality from chaos to order. Von Glasersfeld describes constructivism as, “a theory of knowledge with roots in philosophy, psychology, and cybernetics”

Social constructivism is a sociological theory of knowledge that applies the general philosophical constructivism into social settings, wherein groups construct knowledge for one another, collaboratively creating a small culture of shared artifacts with shared meanings. When one is immersed within a culture of this sort, one is learning all the time about how to be a part of that culture on many levels.

< Constructivist epistemology >

Constructivist epistemology is an epistemological perspective in philosophy about the nature of scientific knowledge. Constructivists maintain that scientific knowledge is constructed by scientists and not discovered from the world. Constructivists argues that the concepts of science are mental constructs proposed in order to explain sensory experience. Another important tenet of Constructivist theory is that there is no single valid methodology in science, but rather a diversity of useful methods. Constructivism is thus opposed to positivism, which is a philosophy that holds that the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on actual sense experience and what other individuals tell us is right and wrong.

< Pragmatism >

Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition centered on the linking of practice and theory. It describes a process where theory is extracted from practice, and applied back to practice to form what is called intelligent practice.

From the perspective of pragmatism, the criterion of truth is usefulness, and therefore not in conformity with objective reality. In fact, everything is proved by the final result.

< General semantics >

General semantics is a program begun in the 1920s that seeks to regulate the evaluative operations performed in the human brain. After partial program launches under the trial names "human engineering" and "humanology.

< Philosophical realism >

Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. Realism may be spoken of with respect to other minds, the past, the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the material world, or even thought. Realism can also be promoted in an unqualified sense, in which case it asserts the mind-independent existence of a visible world, as opposed to idealism, skepticism and solipsism. Philosophers who profess realism state that truth consists in the mind's correspondence to reality.

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality and that every new observation brings us closer to understanding reality. In its Kantian sense, realism is contrasted with idealism. In a contemporary sense, realism is contrasted with anti-realism, primarily in the philosophy of science.

< Existential graph >

Peirce proposed three systems of existential graphs:

-alpha, isomorphic to sentential logic and the two-element Boolean algebra;

-beta, isomorphic to first-order logic with identity, with all formulas closed;

-gamma, (nearly) isomorphic to normal modal logic.

Alpha nests in beta and gamma. Beta does not nest in gamma, quantified modal logic being more than even Peirce could envisage.

The syntax is:

-The blank page;

-Single letters or phrases written anywhere on the page;

-Any graph may be enclosed by a simple closed curve called a cut or sep. A cut can be empty. Cuts can nest and concatenate at will, but must never intersect.

Any well-formed part of a graph is a subgraph.

The semantics are:

-The blank page denotes Truth;

-Letters, phrases, subgraphs, and entire graphs may be True or False;

-To enclose a subgraph with a cut is equivalent to logical negation or Boolean complementation. Hence an empty cut denotes False;

-All subgraphs within a given cut are tacitly conjoined.

…

< Henri Bergson >

Henri-Louis Bergson was a major French philosopher, influential especially in the first half of the 20th century. Bergson convinced many thinkers that immediate experience and intuition are more significant than rationalism and science for understanding reality.

< Ludwig Wittgenstein>

…

…

Do we learn everything from society?

What is intuition and where does it come from?

Regards

@ William Jackson: "Universalism derives from our common collective knowledge,

- we are similar, to the extent of similar genetics and similar culture." by impliation your suggestions may give fodder to racism and those promoting idea of conflicts between civilisations. It also imlies idea of multicultural science. If Arabs can translate scientific treatise from Greek, may write notes and points out their flaws and improve upon it, and you may use in you decimal system zero and algebra from our part of the world via Arabs and use and imrove Al Biruni's spherical trignometry and when you deny necclear technology and super computer to us and we can build both of our own, I don't find any cultural differences in understanding. So we are also capable of understanding your philosophy and culture and fine print of their design. We are able and were always to differentiate between truth and falsehood. If cultural differences are so meaningful, then why we are invited are exploited at home to work in your labs and develop software for your computers.

People who swear by democracy, freedom of speech and expression, cannot bear symbols of other culture religious or otherwise, while you have your religious and other cultural symbols around the world. Remember, culture is a learning process and always strong cultures prevails.

Cultures are mental constructs or man-made artifacts, but over and above them is universal reality that knows no cultural limits or nation-state boundaries that is universal. As sentient beings our efforts should be to find out that reality that binds we all humans, otherwise people will continue to be born promoting racial and civilisational wars. It is the Creator,s promise one who seeks truth would find it out.

"I believe this results largely from differences in the way our languages are constructed", true, some years back in Britain Greek physicians used to be preferred over their Indian counterparts as the latter learnt it hard way what the expression "my heart is jumping" means. But, it does not amount to "each culture has a differing interface (classes of distinctions) with nature." Indian physicians there were not less qualified or inefficient to tamper the jumping heart to its natural thumping. Expressions may make difference, but experience is the same every where. In plain form we have only two feelings attraction and repulsion, but from infancy to childhood we use to learn to express these two feeling in different ways like friendship, aproval, love, enmity, disaproval, hatred, anger etc. However, the fact remains that all these are modes of expression of two basic feelings. That proves that humans share more in common than is implied by your multicultural hypothesis.

In persian there is a couplet part of which is:

Zabane Yaar mun Turki wa mun Turki numi daanum (language of my beloved is Turkish but I don't know Turkish) meaning thereby that for love language is no barrier. Same is true about hate. If one closes eyes and ears he neither can see nor can hear that some one may be more rational. Language, culture are no barriers if one starts to listen dissenting and rational voices.

Because diversity exists, I believe it is important not only to make the statement but also to make visible where it is coming from. I think it has to do with language, but also with cultural and social constructions that give content to thoughts and expressions. Not knowing the context and history of a message deprives us of a very important parts in understanding.

Oh,

Formal: Zabane Yareman Torki hast, va man Torki nemidanam.

Conversational in Shiraz: Zabune Yaaremun Torkie o, man Torki namidunam.

Well, Forget about the languages and words, and take care of the "imaginations" behind "THEM" instead.

El entendimiento técnico del lenguaje está sobre entendido. Understanding the words that express a meaning is the first requirement for human communication, but it does not guarantee communnication.

What is the consequence of denying a common basis (I call it Fitrat)?

Well, William Jackson, your philosophy is a variation of Realism.

If my reality is mine and yours is yours, what should we do when the 2 realities appear to conflict?

There is a related question to Mohammad Firoz Khan and William Jackson discussions in Chinese Philosophy Topic:

Life without Order

Life without Order (=leave it go on the way it goes) (=without the order that we enforce to disturb it),

works when there is no free will.

As soon as one (man_1) finds the free will to lie and commits, he disturbs it the wrong way, so that an unreal conflict will appear in the Life.

Is a realist going to call that "lie", the reality of man_1?

How do you distinguish a (hidden) lie, as a realist?

Life without Order:

http://www.researchgate.net/topic/Chinese_Philosophy/post/Life_without_Order

Regards

@ Ileana Carrion:

“Because diversity exists, I believe it is important not only to make the statement but also to make visible where it is coming from. I think it has to do with language, but also with cultural and social constructions that give content to thoughts and expressions.” Being a realist, I do not believe in constructivist epistemology of any sort either rightist or leftists. I know when Truth emerges, Falsehood has to subsidesand Truth is universal. In the face of facts one cannot deny truth unless one is determined to hide truth or totally biased . In our part of the world (I do not believe drawing lines on map or globe divides humanity) we have discovered unity in diversity in spite of a number of ethnic, linguistic and diametrically/dramatically opposite religious beliefs. No doubt sometimes we have problems but we are able to sort them out in our social, cultural and legal framework and also southwards to the USA exists South America used to be known as “melting pot of races.” I know that the French are very preservative of their culture, but Henri Charriere of Papillon repute to me has a more clear idea of universalism of humanity and what love and fraternity mean than people who talk of genetic differences, cultural differences and linguistic differences.

Yes, you are very true on the count, “Not knowing the context and history of a message deprives us of very important parts in understanding.” But, in most cases true history and context are hided and people are told what never happened.

"On what basis we should accept his statement?"

In the name of the Tao that cant be spoken of I would say that 'All is One' therefore I must divide the One before I can speak of it which leads to my assumption that I first accept a statement (or anything else) which gets into my awareness before I may divide it to say that it is not true.

In other words: If I can accept or not accept a statement I already accepted it.

How do you do Paul Dorra?

Your comment wasn't much vivid for me.

In my words you said:

(Here [A ->] B , means replace A with B)

I first [accept a statement ->] imagine the statement (or anything else) which gets into my awareness before I may [divide it to say ->] choose that it is not true.

In other words: If I can [accept or not accept ->] imagine a statement I already [accepted ->] imagined it.

Is there some money in my pocket?

You accepted the possibility of being some money in my pocket.

Now let me know, is there money in my pocket or not? How much?

If my reality is mine and yours is yours, what should we do when the 2 realities appear to conflict?

----------------

William Jackson:

That is the purpose of discourse, for example:

- this forum :-)

----------------

:-)

Well, I define "common basic unchanging understandings" (Fitrat).

While you seem to use ~"General Semantics".

Are you interested to analyze General Semantics a bit?

I like your way of putting this up:

"I first [accept a statement ->] imagine the statement (or anything else) which gets into my awareness before I may [divide it to say ->] choose that it is not true.

In other words: If I can [accept or not accept ->] imagine a statement I already [accepted ->] imagined it."

I would extend it and say:

1. If I can see something, I need to believe my eyes seeing it [accept the object] I could also not believe in this object. Filtered perception may be what is happening in that case. But then it doesnt matter for me.

2. Afterwards I can imagine it and with this imagination I start an interaction with its meanings associated with it [said in the words of the 'symbolic interactionism']. In my opinion this is the 'place' in which that happens what we are asking for (in rudimentary words); the approval or denial [accept or not accept].

So, this is similar to what you have written. Now: the question if the - lets say I see an animal in 1. - animal has money in its stomach or not - is pure fiction, as it only makes sense if there is a suitable context [for example I lost my purse on the grassland, has the rabbit eaten it? Same when you ask me for the money in your purse. A question which appeared only because of the context of this discussion].

So back to topic.

If someone is telling me his opinion of course I accept it.

When I have a different opinion I could surely divide and delete one of those two but it is always more productiv when I just extend both opinions two one new opinion. It is easier because of the interaction processes with its associated meanings. I cant delete anything that I once associated with something so I believe that it is just unnatural to divide and delete when I can accept and extend things which I believe is somehow the reason why it is more productiv in the end. I guess we would go into neuroscience if we follow this path.

*Hoping that I didnt mess things up*

I think the basis lies in metaphysical principles. Once these principles are laid down then all else can be build from them. This is because metaphysical principles are fundamental and self evident for example: a think cannot be itself and yet another at the same time, as a thing is, so it acts these and many others help to build on philosophical bases. So the basis is metaphysics.

another aspect worthy of note is the logical coherency of what is being said. How systematic is the argument or judgement of the philosopher or philosophy in question. and also the epistemological (gnoseological) dimension of the question must be considered too.

In the name of God

Hello William Jackson

I am sorry for a mistake:

General semantics is not generalized semantics.

I was actually trying to pursue your imaginations during your philosophy hierarchy passing your mind.

And also I wanted to ask if a generalized inter-cultural semantics can exist or not? What would be the imaginations behind it in that case?

-----------------------------

http://thisisnotthat.com/

The site was rather related to Constructivism.

That's cute, but not the whole story.

Are all the things we know based on Constructivism?

-----------------------------

I really have difficulty conveying my imagination to you; Why?

Because I have to best-approximate my imaginations to yours, and I am not much familiar with your imaginations.

I think that's the same situation about you; because of your following question:

Where is your 'Fitrat'?, for example:

- somewhere inside your head,

- somewhere inside your body,

- or, somewhere 'out there'?

Your body is not exactly what you think it is. (Your imagination of your bodyyour body)

This is not that.

What is head? What is body? What is 'out there'? Aren't they your imaginations taken into words?

Is your brain circulating with definitions?

No problem, I have to best-approximate the story into your understandings:

http://thisisnotthat.com :

{

The world in which we live is a world of differences. Of course it's also important to recognize similarities — that's the basis for our human capabilities to create and manipulate symbols for language and thinking.

DGP:

What are those similarities?

What is the abstraction of these similarities?

-----------------------------

I advocate teaching and applying an informed world view deliberately derived from what we currently understand about ourselves and our world … without deference to dogmas, traditions, or what passes for culturally-dependent “common sense.”

DGP:

Does the teaching have a hidden direction\bias\Hierarchy? If so, What is (are) the direction(s)? [Hidden pragmatism]

What are the arrows pointing to?

-----------------------------

In other words, shouldn't we apply what we call knowledge? Shouldn't we act and behave in accordance with what we have learned about ourselves and how our world works?

DGP:

Does our knowledge have a hidden direction? --> Does our behavior have a direction?

So, what is (are) the direction(s)? [Hidden pragmatism]

-----------------------------

"(referring to a simple push-toy bladed fan) Now I rotate the blades. And you see a disc, where there is no disc. Don't call that illusion. It's abstraction …”

DGP:

The wise man_1's reality: a fan with blades

The wise man_2's reality: a motor moving a load

The fool's reality (illusion): disc

The liar’s semi-reality (lie): a (let say) dishwasher using air!

The fool can claim that the wise man's reality is an illusion too.

All of them imagined the happening their own way.

All of them explained what they imagined, except the liar.

Is it possible for the wise man_2 to justify his imagination for the fool?

Is it possible for the wise man_1 to justify his imagination for the wise man_2?

Is it possible for the wise man_1 to justify his imagination for the liar?

...

-----------------------------

“Your perception of the world is really a fabrication of your model of the world. You don't really see light or sound. You perceive it because your model says this is how the world is, and those patterns invoke the model. It's hard to believe, but it really is true.”

DGP:

A Philosophical Hierarchy is a model.

-----------------------------

“What you see is not what is REALLY there; it is what your brain believes is there… Seeing is an active, constructive process. Your brain makes the best interpretation it can according to its previous experiences and the limited and ambiguous information provided by your eyes.”

DGP:

So Something is REALLY there; Where does it come from?

-----------------------------

We can observe, create theories or assumptions, test those theories, then based on results, apply, modify, or discard them. We get into trouble when we ignore this process and rely on unchallenged or untested assumptions, beliefs, or feelings.

DGP:

How can one avoid\decrease hidden assumptions? Using a Philosophical Hierarchy?

}

Whose Hierarchy is Self-consistent?

Regards

Decartes said 'Cogito, ergo sum' (I think, therefore I am). You could always say "I exist", and from there "others like me probably exist", etc. Philosophy is the art of asking (and answering) bad questions. What is a bad question? Good question ;) - a bad question is one that may or may not have a definite, 'real' answer. Asking about a god is a bad question *so far* in human history, because there is no scientific proof one way or the other - we can only judge based on the likelihood of any chosen answer. One thing is guaranteed in philosophy - "you *always* have the ability to choose one answer over the other," and this choice (normally) leads to a belief system, which must necessarily be updated and modifiable to it's very core, otherwise you're setting yourself up to be left behind. IMHO, this is the core of philosophy.