Cartoons cause an uproar

Post questions or suggestions here.
avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:24 pm

only two centuries after the goose Muhammad made his viewpoints the spiritual law.
Whoah big fella. Easy on the anti-Muhammad lines or we'll find a fatwah declared on the Genius Forum.

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:31 pm

No time to write very much on this subject tonight but I am reading.

Leyla mentioned Attaturk as an example of a more enlightened Muslim leader. Ali Bhutto of Pakistan was also such a leader. I have mentioned his name here many times before. He was secular, educated and progressive. Unfortunately, he was killed in his prime. He was too independent; too single minded; too much a self thinker and too much in want of modernity for Pakistan. He made a very impassioned speech in front of the UN before he was killed.

Most Pakistanis believe that speech sealed his fate. This was back in the day when the US CIA had more power to silence.

I will take a shower and maybe reply to Kevin.

Faizi

User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:19 pm

Leyla – there was zero rationality in your response. So I wont bother with it.

Leyla mentioned Attaturk as an example of a more enlightened Muslim leader.

I think Prince Hassan of Jordan is such a leader. I was listening to him on the BBC and he seemed to have some good ideas. He wants a formal dialectic on how to improve relationships between Muslims and the West. He wants it outside of politics (so no UN).

I agree with him, but as he is a Muslim I would not like to see him be successful as what it would mean was compromise and acceptance of Muslim ideas. For example it would be ever so easy for the West to agree not to publish cartoons or whatever of the Goose, but that will never happen unless we know that the Muslims would not continue to ask for non-freedom of speech against the philosophies of Muslims (by philosophies I actually mean ‘habits’) and I could not tolerate them gaining more power to influence within our western societies. We already have separate swimming sessions, allowance of subservient women’s head gear, Muslim schools and so on. They will always ask for more and more freedom to be irrational and I just cant accept that.

It could be a good thing if the western press puts forth a deluge of nasty prophet pictures.aizi

This is definitely what I am hoping for. I want them desensitised, regardless of the cost over the next twenty years.

One of the major problems with Muslims is that they confuse ‘the effects on peoples attitudes in relation to technological advances’ with White Christian people, whereas the fact is that the implementation of technology creates the same attitudes in anyone regardless of where they are from. Some of the most fundamentalist Muslim leaders know this and essentially this is what they stir up the masses for – they know they will lose power if communications technology is allowed free reign. They’ve seen what has happened to Christianity through freedom of the press.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:34 pm

James:

You weren’t meant to bother with it, but since you did I’ll take a look at this statement:
I agree with him [Prince Hassan regarding politics outside of politics], but as he is a Muslim I would not like to see him be successful as what it would mean was compromise and acceptance of Muslim ideas.
This is not a rational statement, James.
One of the major problems with Muslims is that they confuse ‘the effects on peoples attitudes in relation to technological advances’ with White Christian people,…
Middle East and West alike call “God” to account for their actions, apparently.

Your bias is getting boring. Please don’t call it rational.
Some of the most fundamentalist Muslim leaders know this and essentially this is what they stir up the masses for – they know they will lose power if communications technology is allowed free reign.


Here you start on something worthwhile. I think Muslim fundamentalist leaders should take their mark from The West and use its overt propagandist/PR tools much more effectively (actually, simply “effectively” would suffice) than it does at the moment. Never mind truth.

They do have quite a bit to learn.

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:51 pm

Hassan is a good example. However, I think you expect too much of him. In his position, he cannot denounce Islam so easily.

The work toward a more secular Islam is going to take many years. I am fifty three now. I will be fortunate if I see such a thing in my remaining life. It could happen. The demise of communism took about forty years of cold war. I am not looking toward demise of Islam, of course, but progress and education and modernity.

Both sides will have to come to understanding. As I have written here many times, much of the problem stems from tribal differences that are nearly archetypal; submerged in consciousness. The difference between Jews and Christians versus Islam lies in the differences between Ishmael and Issac. Ishmael was the "illigetimate" son of Abraham and his slave, Haagar. Issac was the son of Abraham and his wife. On orders from his wife, Abraham was forced to cast Ishmael and Hagaar into the desert to perish.

At least, it was hoped that Ishmael would perish. But he did not. Abraham is the spiritual and tribal father of Jews/Christians and of Islam. One tribe is legitimate and one is illigitimate. One tribe is favored in the world and one tribe is not. Yet, the unfavored tribe survives.

Reconciliation is critical.

Conflict is unavoidable.

Although I disagree with the false premises for the US attack of Iraq, it may be a good thing. During the Vietnam conflict, the politicians spoke of Vietmazation. "We" were collectively Vietmatized. Now, we are collectively being Iraqatized. Hard process. Too many deaths on both sides. But the conflict might breed understanding.

Though I loathe Bush as a leader and I disagree with the falsensess of the attack, at least, the US had the balls to do something, even against the UN. I hate the war but, at least, it puts Islam on the table.

Had 9/11 and the current war in Iraq never happened, there would be no need for this discussion. No one would give two shits about Islam and a bunch of towel heads.

That is the problem. Ishmael is tired of being cast out.

Faizi

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:17 pm

Imagine if Mohammed himself drew a self-mocking cartoon of himself. The Muslims would then have to kill Mohammed.

I don't think there is any way I can answer that. Many things are misconstrued in the Koran as they are in the Bible. Would Jesus have committed suicide? Had circurmstances not conspired to hang him on a cross, would Jesus have hung himself?

I think so. He was born to die. He was a lamb. Lamb o' Gawd. A patsy.

Jesus died to save fat pig women from their sins.

I really don't believe that crap though multitudes of fat pig women cling to Jesus penis. Christianity is a religion for hogs and cunts. Very cheap. Easy in and easy out.

But, to Muslims, the prophet is exactly as pure and defenseless and as vulnerable and as perfect as a newborn American baby.

That's the problem. What kind of a religion worships a defenseless baby?

My analogy of Muhammad as a defenseless baby was not inference that the prophet was a baby. My intention was to show that his memory is as precious to many Muslims as the newborn flesh of a baby is to most westerners.

In Buddhism no thought is ever given to the Buddha being mocked. You could depict the Buddha doing all kinds of profane things, and I think the only reaction it would get from Buddhists would be either mild curiosity, or no interest whatsoever. Not that Buddhist are wise at all - but the religion is possibly a little more mature than the current incarnation of Islam.

Buddhism is not a religion.

It could be a good thing if the western press puts forth a deluge of nasty prophet pictures.

I think this is likely. Or at least, it will happen on the internet.

Allah Akhbar.

Faizi
Last edited by MKFaizi on Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway » Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:19 pm

MKFaizi wrote:Although I disagree with the false premises for the US attack of Iraq
We don't know for sure what the premises were. I am sure it is a lot more complicated than simply "weapons of mass destruction". It may be decades before we know the real reasons, if ever.

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:37 pm

I cannot credit George W. Bush with such depth. He lied. I cannot believe that he could fathom any deeper reason for the war in Iraq beyond "weapons of mass destruction." He wanted war. He got it. He got to be a "wartime president" -- a ball throb. Did you not see the pictures of him in his flyboy jumpsuit when he declared (1984) VICTORY?

The "deeper" reason may be on an unconscious plane of mind but I do not believe that unconsciousness excuses carnage and deceit.

The reason for the war was WMD. WMD is a proven lie and hoax. Even Americans know that now.

I mean, DUH.

Faizi

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:00 pm

Leyla wrote:
What exactly is your anti-Islamic discourse worth to it, the West (since I can assume from all of this that you are not talking to men)?
Since my “discourse” was about the preservation and development of masculinity; I’d say that only a few men would have found it interesting. As I pointed out in my post - most people couldn’t care less about it.

Sue

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:44 am

sue hindmarsh wrote:There are, of course, some circumstances that are more beneficial for his [the individual's] development; such as having the time and freedom to strengthen his mind. If he doesn't have that environment, he will find it much harder going.
Perhaps time and freedom are more like a double-edged sword; they don't really change that much when taken everything into account. And why would it be a bad thing to 'find it much harder going'? As soon as someone starts to waken up to the truth, his old reality will always seem like a prison and oppressing his true nature. This understanding comes way more difficult in a life full of illusive forms of freedom and free-time. If anything they promote feminine mindsets way stronger than masculine ones. And of course: freedom is ultimately subjective for any individual or the culture that's producing him.
The only time a “clash” is acceptable, is when one form of irrationality is more destructive towards the survival of Truth than another – and, as I’ve already noted, having the time and freedom to think, is important for the development of an individual – so any culture that is able to provide such an environment is to be protected.
If having the time and freedom to think is so important to wisdom, can you tell me what happened to wisdom last fifty years where individuality in the West is supposed to have risen to astounding heights, by all definitions? Not to mention all the available free-time to think. But all we can see is that wisdom is on the brink of becoming extinct altogether. Maybe we should start betting on another culture to protect what is valuable?
Allah was not a true Great Man – he was in the right place at the right time; which is the usual story for the men, and women who have made their mark on history.
Allah is defined by Muslims more abstract than even the Judeo-Christian God is by Jews and Christians. Where you thinking of Mohammed here perhaps?
“A TV reality show” and “postmodern philosophy” both show up the pettiness of Western culture, but they are not taken seriously by the whole of this culture.
It doesn't matter, they express or eat away at the core of current Western culture quite well. It doesn't need to be democratically chosen or understood by the masses to function that way. Actually they function better when not understood or taken seriously at all. That's an important part of their mechanics.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:19 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
This understanding comes way more difficult in a life full of illusive forms of freedom and free-time. If anything they promote feminine mindsets way stronger than masculine ones
.

Speaking for myself, I think people hanker after freedom within discipline rather than freedom floating in air. That's a strong concept in Zen also. The struggle with oneself is the greatest, not the struggle with that which is outside.
It doesn't matter, they [reality TV shows] express or eat away at the core of current Western culture quite well. It doesn't need to be democratically chosen or understood by the masses to function that way. Actually they function better when not understood or taken seriously at all. That's an important part of their mechanics.
Reminds me of a recent Seinfeld joke: "Why is it called reality TV? What does hanging upside down on a huge rubber band eating bull anuses have to do with reality?"

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:19 pm

Marsha: But, to Muslims, the prophet is exactly as pure and defenseless and as vulnerable and as perfect as a newborn American baby.

Kevin: That's the problem. What kind of a religion worships a defenseless baby?

Marsha: My analogy of Muhammad as a defenseless baby was not inference that the prophet was a baby. My intention was to show that his memory is as precious to many Muslims as the newborn flesh of a baby is to most westerners.
Now see, this is fantastic. She said “is exactly as” not “is” - plain English! Why is it that when I read what Marsha said, I knew exactly what she meant yet you, Kevin, twisted it? Really, you don’t need to answer that for my benefit.
Kevin: We don't know for sure what the premises were. I am sure it is a lot more complicated than simply "weapons of mass destruction". It may be decades before we know the real reasons, if ever.
Obviously, given the premises you seem to operate from (as demonstrated in the above point of discussion between you and Marsha) you are going to have a lot of difficulty working out what the premises for the war from the US perspective are.
Sue: Since my “discourse” was about the preservation and development of masculinity; I’d say that only a few men would have found it interesting. As I pointed out in my post - most people couldn’t care less about it.
Rubbish. I think you should keep your “womanising” out of politics rather than in it.

For example, (and I’m glad at least one other person is educated enough on the subject to have noticed):
Sue: Allah was not a true Great Man – he was in the right place at the right time; which is the usual story for the men, and women who have made their mark on history.

Diebert: Allah is defined by Muslims more abstract than even the Judeo-Christian God is by Jews and Christians. Where you thinking of Mohammed here perhaps?
Who the hell would think Mohammed was the same as Allah except a god-damned Christian, eh?

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:33 pm

Leyla Shen wrote:
Marsha: But, to Muslims, the prophet is exactly as pure and defenseless and as vulnerable and as perfect as a newborn American baby.

Kevin: That's the problem. What kind of a religion worships a defenseless baby?

Marsha: My analogy of Muhammad as a defenseless baby was not inference that the prophet was a baby. My intention was to show that his memory is as precious to many Muslims as the newborn flesh of a baby is to most westerners.
Now see, this is fantastic. She said “is exactly as” not “is” - plain English!
I wasn't being literal. I could have said something like, "What kind of a religion considers the founder of their religion, or indeed the very truth of their religion, as a kind of defenseless baby?" :-)

Get Real
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:51 pm

Post by Get Real » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:50 pm

Those ancient bitches are attempting to gain control over the entire world! this is no minor matter, if the world, if euro heads show weakness or fear that would be a very bad thing for anyone valuing sanity. They'll believe Allah himself was behind it and just become invigorated, push even harder next time. You're right, whatever mess they make is well worth it, let the bullying fuckers destroy whatever they please, let em get it out of their system, never back down, print print print those damn cartoons and then some!
Those madmen may succeed in making others respect their imaginary god, i'm sick to think about it, like we must respect their religion and saints, bullshit, bullshit times 10. This is no minor matter, where are the cartoons, I dont see any, have we run scared tails between our legs? Is the UN going to write some new fucking law now telling us we cant despise their fucked up beliefs and that we're forbidden to tell about it? Oh shit, i sure hope not. The cure isn't giving in to those asses, thats not the cure for contention between xtians and muslims, no sir. The cure looks more like proving to them that their panic attacks are a total waste of time and only hurt their cause and their childrens future. What a bunch of assholes, how dare they try to force others to respect either their gods or theirselves, eat shit i say, You fuckers ought to thank Allah we havent blown you all to kingdom come already, and if you keep it up it may happen. The US is correct to say a nuclear Iran would be very bad news, but already its bad news that they are even attempting it. The US fucked up royally, what did Bush accomplish? They have just been made more fearful, what did they accomplish in Palestine? A terrorist group has taken over the government! See what a mistake that was!
Either let them have their darn way or get really tough, really tough with em. But to go only half way has back-fired.
This is much more important and significant than many think, this is the beginning of the last world war, never has it ever been closer, and every day closer it gets. Too late for sweet talk i fear, time to get really tough, time to leave no Islamist dumb to the reality of their weakness and vulnerability, leave no one wondering who's the Boss.
Last edited by Get Real on Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

A LITTLE TOO IRONIC

Post by Leyla Shen » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:58 pm

I wasn't being literal. I could have said something like, "What kind of a religion considers the founder of their religion, or indeed the very truth of their religion, as a kind of defenseless baby?" :-)
Oh, come on, Kevin. Are you patronising me? It’s not so hard to understand. I’m sure most people around here understand what fundy Christians and Muslims have in common. No?

Then again, isn’t action in defense of Ultimate Truth (against ignorance) an admission to the precious, baby-like nature of it? I mean, Sue - at least - would be prepared to go to war over it. Why not let it fight its own war?

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: A LITTLE TOO IRONIC

Post by Kevin Solway » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:16 pm

Leyla Shen wrote:Then again, isn’t action in defense of Ultimate Truth (against ignorance) an admission to the precious, baby-like nature of it? I mean, Sue - at least - would be prepared to go to war over it. Why not let it fight its own war?
Physical violence might work when defending a helpless baby, but, generally speaking, physical violence, or the fear of physical violence, doesn't work to protect wisdom. It is likely to diminish wisdom even further.

Wisdom certainly has to be protected, but not in the same physical or psychological way one might protect a helpless chlid.

There are however conceivable cases where wise people might use physical measures to protect wisdom, namely themselves, if under dire attack. But mocking cartoons would not be considered to be "under dire attack". They would have to be under serious threat of physical extermination.

User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:26 pm

Get Real

It is easy to go over the top about this issue isn’t it. I do it all the time.

I think we must try and remember that stuff like this often just comes to a head then dies slowly away, a bit like two pissed idiots who have a blue over nothing then retreat to lick their wounds and end up friends (albeit in this case neither side will even be friends while the Muslim religion remains so much a personal decision controlling force in the lives of adherents).

I don’t think it will end up as WW1 for one reason – the Muslims are simply too weak militarily (and maybe the West is doing its best to keep them that way). If some nutter gets power in Pakistan and uses nukes, or if we do not prevent Iran from getting nukes, or if Muslim countries get together in some strongly organised fashion, then sure we have a problem, but until then it isn’t really at an extreme enough level to get too worked up about. If they refuse to supply oil then it might result in war, but money is too powerful so that wouldn’t last long either.

We can of course expect a continuation of terrorism for many years. But quite frankly that isn’t that dangerous – but it is costly and governments do use it as an excuse for added controls over populations.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:55 pm

LS: Then again, isn’t action in defense of Ultimate Truth (against ignorance) an admission to the precious, baby-like nature of it? I mean, Sue - at least - would be prepared to go to war over it. Why not let it fight its own war?

KS: Physical violence might work when defending a helpless baby, but, generally speaking, physical violence, or the fear of physical violence, doesn't work to protect wisdom. It is likely to diminish wisdom even further.
So, by this measure, one can see that generally speaking (and I must admit a keen curiosity on your use of this qualifier here) any reactions to the cartoons -- not based on a fear of physical violence -- could rightly and logically be conceived as a means of protecting wisdom. Also, we can see that any reactions to the reactions to the cartoons based on a fear of physical violence do not serve to protect wisdom.
KS: Wisdom certainly has to be protected, but not in the same physical or psychological way one might protect a helpless chlid.
Correct. There is no hint of emotional attachment in one‘s actions - which, of course, coupled necessarily with reason, affects the actions and the outcome the wise man takes. That is, his actions result in the greatest possible propagation of Truth.

Would you say that the wise man is aware of exactly what that greatest possible propagation is, or is it just a matter of faith?
KS: There are however conceivable cases where wise people might use physical measures to protect wisdom, namely themselves, if under dire attack.
Of course, but that response is not limited to wise people.

If Tasmania were to be the object of a constant source of attack from -- oh, I don’t know -- say, Scotland, would you support an attack on Scotland or move to another location if that location would allow you to move in?
KS: But mocking cartoons would not be considered to be "under dire attack". They would have to be under serious threat of physical extermination.
Naturally, but in my estimation, this thing with the Muslims goes beyond mocking cartoons. I just don’t see a fully enlightened Buddha saying, “Hey, that’s a real wise response to their reaction. Give ‘em hell!” I mean, it’s lovely and poetic and heroic and all if you‘re that way inclined, but wise?

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:04 pm

I'm still your friend, James.

User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:34 pm

I've started a couple of responses to you recently, but I never finish them to my satisfaction. I would have but I'm not usually bothering with the forums much at night or on the wekends. Nor do I like responding to questions - unless I'm in blathering mood. I just like to comment on the comments of others.

Are you having difficulty with nihilism? You seem to have the sort of anger over the last few months that that produces. If you are I'm the same.

As there is no reason or purpose in anything, and the more knowledge I get about the world the more cycnical I become, then I keep thinking my purpose should be to actively seek more instances of natural animal happiness through friendly interacting with others. Not that I'll do this though, as I couldn't stand doing what it takes to do so.

User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Being Cynical

Post by DHodges » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:54 pm

Jamesh wrote:As there is no reason or purpose in anything, and the more knowledge I get about the world the more cycnical I become, then I keep thinking my purpose should be to actively seek more instances of natural animal happiness through friendly interacting with others. Not that I'll do this though, as I couldn't stand doing what it takes to do so.
Ah, there's the rub.

I remember being at a certain age, when I noticed that the moments when I thought I was being the most completely cynical, thinking, no, that can't possibly be the way things are, I'm being way too cynical - were actually times when my cynicism did not go nearly far enough.

Get Real
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:51 pm

Post by Get Real » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:54 am

It is easy to go over the top about this issue isn’t it. I do it all the time.

I think we must try and remember that stuff like this often just comes to a head then dies slowly away, a bit like two pissed idiots who have a blue over nothing then retreat to lick their wounds
I don't think people understand the significance of this, of what is happening.
Listen, do we allow internal religious groups or movements to legislate, to determine our laws and rules of behavior? NO, we don't. Then why should we allow external religious nuts to do so? But that is just what has happened. That the secular world would even entertain their demands, entertain the suggestion that the UN should act, should create new laws on their behalf, to do anything like this, even to apologize is a mistake and a slap in the face of free people, it's a giving in. We don't even submit to our own churches demands, how dare our leaders grant those sick fuckwits anything at all????

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:05 pm

Diebert wrote:
Perhaps time and freedom are more like a double-edged sword; they don't really change that much when taken everything into account.
How is having the time and freedom to strengthen your mind “like a double-edged sword”?

How does not having time and freedom help the budding philosopher?
And why would it be a bad thing to 'find it much harder going'?
Most men enjoy being safely tucked-up in their comfortable bed, animal hide, or grass mat at night; only to have to get up in the morning to pray to some god, or go jogging, and then go to work or study, return home to the wife and kids or friends or parents – all of whom want their man to interact with them, or have him do chores, or fix something. To then suggest to him that he sit down and think about the meaning of life and death; would be expecting a great deal. He is just too mentally and physically exhausted. For men to have the chance to use their minds in the pursuit of wisdom, they need to create for themselves a freer lifestyle.

Lolling around all day, sleeping, eating, doing a bit of writing, going for a walk, reading a little, watching the waves roll in onto the beach – definitely no work, no family, and no girlfriends – just the man alone with his thoughts. That is the environment for a Philosopher.

Diebert, what sort of environment do you consider beneficial to the development of a Philosopher?
As soon as someone starts to waken up to the truth, his old reality will always seem like a prison and oppressing his true nature.
What “truth” is one awakening to?
This understanding comes way more difficult in a life full of illusive forms of freedom and free-time. If anything they promote feminine mindsets way stronger than masculine ones.
What “understanding”?

Why are freedom and free-time “illusive forms”, and why do they “promote feminine mindsets… stronger than masculine ones”?
And of course: freedom is ultimately subjective for any individual or the culture that's producing him.
Yes subjective, but also universally understood to mean; not restricted, not controlled, not limited. So, your point about it being “subjective” is - what?
If having the time and freedom to think is so important to wisdom, can you tell me what happened to wisdom last fifty years where individuality in the West is supposed to have risen to astounding heights, by all definitions? Not to mention all the available free-time to think. But all we can see is that wisdom is on the brink of becoming extinct altogether. Maybe we should start betting on another culture to protect what is valuable?
This forum is a good example of how freedom assists the spread of Wisdom. People from many countries use this forum to share ideas and perhaps learn something.

At this point in time, Australia seems to be a breeding ground for Philosophers – the best examples being Kevin Solway and David Quinn. Australia is surely an odd place for philosophy to blossom, because the people here generally "don't give a shit" about; politics and history, trends and fashions, technology and science, philosophy and religion – some of them are fanatical about sport, but at bottom - the greatest passion Aussie's share is having fun.

Maybe, being raised in this hedonistic culture got David and Kevin questioning their own values, then to question societies’ values, which would have led them to consider the big questions concerning life and death. It surely had something to do with them becoming Philosophers.
Allah is defined by Muslims more abstract than even the Christian God is by Jews and Christians. Where you thinking of Mohammed here perhaps?
Yes I meant Mohammed, but the slip is telling – it’s hard to separate Allah and Mohammed – because neither of them inspire in me any desire to have anything to do with them. The same goes for the Christian’s God and Jesus, as well as the Buddhist’s idea of Buddha. They all represent love of ignorance, and a hatred for Life.
It doesn't matter, they express or eat away at the core of current Western culture quite well. It doesn't need to be democratically chosen or understood by the masses to function that way. Actually they function better when not understood or taken seriously at all. That's an important part of their mechanics.
The few individuals that will develop in any culture are not going to be taken in by the nonsense of that culture – that is why they are individuals. My point was that Western culture provides a variety of viewpoints. At any time there can be a number of opposite and opposing viewpoints in favour, and people accept this situation. When one viewpoint is in favour more than all the rest, some people get edgy and conflicts develop. Often these conflicts don’t last long, because at base, people in the West just like to get on with their lives, avoiding conflict as much as possible.

If you live in the West, with many viewpoints to choose from, you’ll reject most and only go with those that fit in with your interests and belief-system that you happen to have at any particular time. The budding individual, given all this choice, is more able to use his discriminating skills to weed out what is true and what is false.

He will not find it easy being a thinker, because people don’t like to have their beliefs and dreams questioned. He may find himself pushed away by friends and family, ignored by women, and thought eccentric or slightly 'mad' by his community, but that is what mostly happens in the West when you question the things people hold dear.

Do you think a budding philosopher, say living in today’s China, is going to be just ignored by his community when he starts questioning their values and traditions? I don’t think so – it would be more likely that that community will lock him up, or make him change his point of view.

Did you know that this forum is banned in China? Why do you think they have done this – do you think they are just afraid of nihilism – or do you think it goes deeper than that?

Sue
Last edited by sue hindmarsh on Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:36 pm

Diebert,
Not that I expect you to read it all but you'd notice that philosophers like for example Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi (13th century), ad-Din ash-Shiraz (17th century) and Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr (20th century) all have mastered the principles of causality and the Absolute, using much of the same reasoning thinkers like Quinn and Solway have used. The religious phrasings that make the texts harder to read is not more of a problem than they are in the writings of Spinoza or Kierkegaard.

I have difficulties reading that material too, as I find it very enervating. Would you be able to make a compilation of the wisest bits of their material and post it onto the forum? I think many of us would find that interesting.

Many current Muslim philosophers are aware of the Western nihilism and reject it, not because they fear Western freedom and individuality in itself but because they can see the black hole to where mindless application of these leads to. The challenge is for them to look for new ways, using the abstract notions of Allah, to lead people to know divine Reality. I wish them all the best.
This is a problem that every philosopher has to face has at some point, and, provided that he successfully passes through this nihilistic black cloud and remains completely rational, it will burn away all of his extraneous beliefs. So it is a very important phase of development.

This forum (together with the Thinking Man's Minefield, etc) is the only place I know of in the entire world which deals with the issue successfully - that is, without falling back into blind belief. So I would be very interested to know of anyone else, Muslim or otherwise, who is also dealing with it successfully.

-

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:48 pm

Jamesh wrote:I've started a couple of responses to you recently, but I never finish them to my satisfaction. I would have but I'm not usually bothering with the forums much at night or on the wekends. Nor do I like responding to questions - unless I'm in blathering mood. I just like to comment on the comments of others.

Are you having difficulty with nihilism? You seem to have the sort of anger over the last few months that that produces. If you are I'm the same.

As there is no reason or purpose in anything, and the more knowledge I get about the world the more cycnical I become, then I keep thinking my purpose should be to actively seek more instances of natural animal happiness through friendly interacting with others. Not that I'll do this though, as I couldn't stand doing what it takes to do so.
That's interesting. I had no idea I was coming across as angry. In fact, I thought I might have been coming across as rather tame! Maybe its in the ideas rather than the language? I mean, I know I used to swear and taunt a lot more a few months back.

I'm no nihilist, James. I reckon individuals have something to say about the reason and purpose of any thing.

Post Reply