Ghazali and Hume: Addiction and Disability - Phase -II

To understand in more depth the nature of the relationship between coincidence and necessity, it is necessary to trace its roots to pre-Socrates Greek philosophy. So that we do not have much difficulty in coming to the conclusion that Ghazali has exploited a philosophical concept and imposed a religious concept on it from outside, which is a non-philosophical and irrational trend. Since it is based on the "coincidence" which Ghazali has dubbed "miracles", it is important that the concept be interpreted as it really is.

Annexa Ghorus, briefly mentioned above, was the first philosopher in Athens before Socrates, the philosopher who laid the foundations of philosophy in Athens. Although the scientific theory of the lunar eclipse of Aenexagorus is still considered 'correct' in the history of science, we are not concerned with it at the moment. It is important for us to know the significance of the concepts under which Aenexagorus described the universe, and how post-Anexaghorus Greek philosophers, especially Socrates and Aristotle, view it. Aristotle criticized Annexaghors in "Metaphysics" and wrote that Anexaghores interprets natural phenomena as far as possible in the light of natural factors, while the universe was not created for him at any particular moment. Where he cannot interpret cosmic phenomena under the concept of necessity within the universe, he imagines a "mind" beyond the universe, in order to advance his conclusions under the guise of continuity. 

Could maintain Basically, Annexaghorus denies the creation of the material universe, and acknowledges that whatever changes take place within matter, their motive is not from outside, but to scatter and compile their constituents within matter. The trend is there. Different forms of matter like water, fire, air, wood etc. are specific manifestations of matter and all of them have natural ability to collect their specific particles. And that ability gives them a certain identity in their present material form. Substances are constantly distributed to Anexagorus. A great scientist like Democrat, who did not believe in any rational force in the creation of the universe, thought that after the continuous distribution of matter there comes a time when matter particles are indivisible, and this whole process is spontaneous. 

The organization, harmony and balance in the material universe is due to the properties of matter itself. On the contrary, Anexus Goress concludes that the process of distribution of matter never stops, but that matter is permanently divisible. However, Anexagorus' views changed, and eventually, contrary to the scientific views of the Democrats, he was forced to say that there was a "mind" behind the material universe. Disabled justified. It is a philosophy that has far broader meanings than religious thought about the universe. This thought influenced Socrates. Socrates, who believed in God and was well-known as Annexagorus, was greatly disappointed when he tried to gain access to the reality of the universe in the light of Anexagorus' philosophy. In Plato's dialogue "Fedo" Socrates expresses this as follows:

"Then I heard a man, according to him, reading from the book Annexagoras, that our minds are the cause and effect of all things, and I was very pleased with the idea which seemed very reasonable, and said in my heart. If our mind is the cause, it will do its best and give everything its proper place. ”(Plato, Conversations, 167)

Ghazali and Hume: Addiction and Disability Phase -I

A general impression is that the questions that Ghazali has raised about the concept of necessity between cause and effect in relation to nature did not exist before Ghazali. This idea is the result of a complete ignorance of Greek philosophy. On this basis it is also claimed that the 17th century skeptic David Hume borrowed his philosophy from Ghazali. Eventually they come to the conclusion that Ghazali's own ideas are borrowed from Greek philosophy, which will be analyzed in the following lines. 

The tradition of materialism in Greek philosophy, which extends to Democrats and Epicurus before and after Anexoghurus, interprets natural factors under their spontaneous movement, which is a scientific phenomenon. The universe before Aenexagorus was interpreted from the point of view of materialism, which Aristotle mentions in detail in the first few pages of his book Metaphysics, and Aristotle views this dominant aspect of materialism with dislike. 

The reason for this is that only material addiction remains in it while other addictions (figurative, functional, singular) have no role. This is a definition in which there is no possibility of "coincidence", while Aristotle attaches great importance to "coincidence". It should be noted that it is 'coincidence' that leads Ghazali to 'miracles'. Coincidence undermines the notion of necessity. 

Materialists see necessity in nature while interpreting the creation of the universe as 'coincidence'. Aristotle and all the philosophers who were influenced by Aristotle, especially in the Islamic world, some of them agreed with Aristotle's philosophy of 'coincidence' did it. "Coincidence" means that there is no necessity in the universe all the time, but there is full scope for coincidences. Aristotle discusses the concept of coincidence in chapter four of his book, Physics, and says that, first of all, the Greek philosophers "do not accept coincidence, and if they do, they ignore it." He cites the example of Empedocles, whose scientific results are recognized not only in his own age but also in our age, according to Bertrand Russell.

Not only this, with the help of Empedocles it is believed that the body parts of animals come into being by chance. Coincidence means that there is room for something else in the absolute dictatorship of necessity. That is, it is not necessary that the cause always leads to a specific cause, but that the relationship between cause and effect may deteriorate and things may come into existence by chance. Ghazali cleverly expresses this in the words: "The affirmation of one does not imply the affirmation of the other, nor does the negation of the one imply the negation of the other." And Kamal borrows. 

As Ghazali seeks to accommodate some of the basic concepts of religion, he has failed to see "coincidence" as a manifestation of the internal forces of the universe, which is a feature of the universe itself and not of any. The work of an extraterrestrial being! Since "objectivity" is of primary importance in religion, Ghazali also had a search for the same purpose, or so to speak, the search for the factors that would pave the way for Ghazali to reach that goal.

Britain and Secularism: Some Concerns (First Principle of Secularism)

I think Britain is a liberal country but it has not yet risen to the level of secular. The first basic principle of secularism is to keep religion separate from state institutions. So is Britain a secular country in this regard? My answer is, no! Britain can only be called a secular country if it adheres to the basic tenets of secularism. What are the reasons I object to the fact that Britain is not a secular country? Let's take a brief look.

1. The point is, the Queen of England, who is the head of the Church of England, is the head of the United Kingdom constitutionally, albeit metaphorically.

2. Religious education in UK state schools has the same meaning that religion is not separate from state institutions, whereas it should be. This means banning religious education in schools.

3. Providing places of worship in government buildings is also a negation of secularism, such as universities, local councils and even parliament and other government institutions.

4. There should be a ban on taking oath on the basis of religious books in the courts. Religious oaths are unnecessary when everything comes to light in the investigation.

5. Most religious people are praying in a park, on a road or sidewalk. Allowing religious rites in public places is against secular society, because this act of worship is offensive to many secular people like me. Therefore, public places should be kept free from these superstitions.

6. Religion is an individual matter. Worship should be limited to homes and places of worship.

7. Funding of places of worship in the UK is also a negation of secularism, which should be stopped immediately.

8. The state should revoke the existing licenses, instead of issuing more licenses to the hundreds of religious TV channels that are open. This business in the name of religion is against secular values.

Because secularism should not only advocate the separation of religion in political matters, but also the state should separate itself from the social and cultural affairs of religion. I am not saying that the state should oppress anyone, but I am insisting only that the state should completely separate itself from religion. I am sending a detailed letter to Parliament in the next few days to bring British society in line with the basic tenets of secularism.

The Turks argue that our political thinking requires that we be guided by our political experience

Concerning the birth of Islam, I am sure that I will now be able to prove to your consolation that it is also the birth of inductive reason. In Islam, since prophecy has reached its completion, The need arose. Behind this was the insightful realization that human beings could not always be run on crutches. In order to attain full self-consciousness, it was necessary to be left alone to use one's own resources. The recitation of the Qur'an repeatedly asking us to refer to reason and experience, the repeated emphasis of the Qur'an on the nature, history and human resources of knowledge, all these are different aspects of the Qur'an itself.

Muhammad Iqbal, New Formation, Fifth Lecture

"Conservatism is as bad a thing in religion as it is in any other field of human activity, it destroys the creative freedom of the self. And it closes the door to new areas of spirituality. "

Muhammad Iqbal, New Formation, Seventh Lecture

 Muhammad Iqbal, Khilafah and the Nation

which without hesitation points to the fact that the idea of ​​a universal caliphate has failed in practice. This was a useful idea as long as the Islamic Empire existed. Since the Islamic Empire was torn apart, independent units have been established, so this idea cannot be followed nor can it be considered as a living element of the Islamic organization. I can be useful. Instead of fulfilling a useful goal, it is an obstacle to the unity of the Muslim states. The Arabs have always supported their aspirations. And in Islam, all these differences are a sign of the power that was lost a long time ago. So why don't we try our political thinking. Learn from. "

Muhammad Iqbal, New Formation of Islamic Thought, Sixth Lecture.

Applying Dialectical Logic to Reason and Revelation

The intellect is a capacity of man which he uses to discover not only the universe, society and history but also his essence. In this respect the intellect is active, and its object is two-sided, first nature and then nature and the intellect's own function which is formed after acting on the object, which is a combination of intellect and object. On the contrary, the revelation sent by a third party is a "secret object" which depends entirely on "belief". If there is no belief, then revelation has no value except for a few pieces of paper. Pieces of paper that as text can only be the object of intellect, but intellect is never the object of revelation. The intellect itself has absolute function, which discovers its logical motion in history and society. To prove this logically, we must apply dialectical logic to revelation and reason.

This does not mean that no object, object, etc. exists, but it is a method of understanding the pre-existing object, object, universe. So if the question is asked what is the intellect, and the answer is that the intellect is the intellect, then nothing is gained from it, that is, if the intellect is equal to the intellect, then there is nothing, because we know this. Couldn't figure out what it is! Thus the answer to the question of what is intellect is that intellect is nothing. Nothing means that the intellect is not the intellect. Thus the intellect negates its own abstract character from which the meanings were to be derived. If we look at it from a philosophical level, two terms have been discovered: one is the intellect which was conceived, and the other is the negation of this conceived abstract intellect, which is bread or non-intellect. It is important to remember that we imagined the intellect to be analyzed, but this does not necessarily mean that the intellect already existed, because the intellect is proving to be not the intellect. 

The intellect that was already conceived was actually not intellect. Now the question is, what is this nonsense? If we look in the light of the last sections of the first book of Hegel's Encyclopedia, then this knot intellect is actually the universe, the object, the nature, the object, the external world. Thus, if it is said that the universe, nature, etc., are derived from within the intellect, then it would be equally true that the intellect, etc., are derived from within the universe, nature. In this way the intellect forms its object universe and the universe which is the opposite of the intellect finds its subject in the intellect. And the dialectical relationship between the two leads to an understanding of the interaction of the universe and the intellect itself. We now apply dialectical logic to revelation.

If the same question is asked of the revelation which asked the intellect what revelation is and the intellect is not brought into the middle, then the answer will be the same that revelation is "nothing" ie revelation is not really revelation. In discovering the interaction of the intellect, we have come to the conclusion that it is logically possible that what is "nothing", which was the second term, is actually the universe from which the intellect derives its meanings. But when it is said that revelation is "nothing", then the problem of understanding this "nothing" or not revelation arises. Revelation has no value if it remains within dialectical logic, because it is not possible to discover what revelation is! Whereas the whole 'reality' of revelation is not in its being revelation but in its being 'revelation'. During the analysis of the intellect, it was discovered that the object of the intellect, which is not the intellect or the universe, nature, etc., is not proved in the analysis of revelation. 

The reason for this is that without intellect, revelation has no meaning. If it is assumed that the object of revelation is the intellect, then the problem arises that the intellect has already discovered its object, and if the intellect is considered the object of revelation, then the function of revelation is called into question because the intellect itself Is active which is constantly forming concepts in its relationship with the universe, while revelation has become a need of intellect to form its own concepts. Therefore, if revelation is to be meaningful in any context, then it has to be the object of intellect as a text, otherwise it has no status.

Let us also assume that the intellect is the object of revelation, that is, the dialectical relationship between reason and the universe is the same dialectical relationship between reason and revelation. In the dialectical relationship between the intellect and the universe, all the activity of the intellect is due to the universe, although the intellect is active, which by its activity is Indian. As we have seen, the totality of revelation depends on the intellect, because revelation is not active in any way, so the revelation of the intellect is exposed just as the universe! Therefore, to claim that revelation is "superior" to reason in any respect is not logically correct.

A look at the current political scenario with PDM, & PTI

Much has been made clear and much remains to be done. The example set by the 11 parties participating in the PDM in the name of democracy and the supremacy of the constitution by the judiciary will be considered as an important chapter in the history of Pakistan. The letter that Imran Khan spoke of was absolutely correct. This was a foreign agenda, which seemed to be fulfilled, but left an indelible mark on Pakistan's politics. In his speech, Khan called India a "self-sufficient" country.

In fact, he was not addressing Indians, he was referring to "boots" and their "polishes". When one is said to be honorable, the other being told is honorable. A few weeks ago, he had said in the same shoes that he was sitting in the Prime Minister's House and if he came out on the streets, he would forbid him to live. This scene, however, remains to be seen.

Three years ago today, I had said to Solat Nagy, with whom he also agreed, that either they would humiliate Imran Khan and expel him, or they would kill him, for which there are still possibilities.

 What steps does Khan take going forward?

For us, however, it was astonishing how the whole opposition came together on one page and got on the boot mat. It became clear that it was a matter of two and a half, and in the name of democracy, the mob of all capitalists was forced to take off one person. Anyone who refused the mat was slapped and released. Where did the people and their basic human rights come from? The answer is no. The people are bound by political affiliation with "democratic" politicians.

Imran Khan's fault is that he is not only primarily aware of the political, social and economic process but also an incompetent political leader. The absence of any political, welfare, reform policy is proof of this. That is why he repeated the example of the state of Madinah every time. He exemplified a simple Islamic ideology based on a simple tribal system, which continued to operate not in the name of man, but out of fear of Allah. 

Ninety percent of which is now obsolete. The rosary in his hand at all times was nothing but religious hypocrisy, and that rosary could not save him from this humiliation nor could it help him in any other way. We have before us the examples of the fighting of the Islamic Caliphs, who were killed in the most humiliating way. The political use of religion is a sign of political defeat. That was the age of religion, the age of reason and logic. There was fear, here the role of responsibility towards human beings is decisive.

In this whole process, however, the role of liberals and some media channels looked very ugly. These guys sell everything for the envelope.

It is hoped, however, that Khan will unravel this heinous game himself. The stage is difficult. There is a danger to life, but it is necessary at the moment. If Khan speaks the truth and exposes the conspiracy and violence against the democratic process, then the hands and "boots" of the people are likely to fall.

Antonio Gramsci's, Theosophy's book "For Marx"

The idea came to me while reading Theosophy's book "For Marx". The idea is mine, not the Theosophists.

Antonio Gramsci's whole philosophy revolves around one point: that Marx and Engels, based on their "scientific philosophy", claimed that revolution would come first in the developed Western countries. 

This claim proved to be false. This false claim by Marx and Engels forced Gramsci to reconsider "scientific, historical, materialistic". Gramsci explored the role of ideology, which led to the Thessalonians, and later to Polynesia. Machiavelli, Adorno, etc. even surpassed Lakash. 

It became clear that Marx and Engels were completely wrong in their interpretations, in their predictions, they failed to analyze the situation. 

The position for the survival of mankind was completely correct, the solution completely failed. The important role of ideology, not the end of bourgeois philosophy, was its victory. 

So philosophy is not one, it is two. A bourgeoisie, which he denies. The second is the proletariat, which is ignorant of the philosophical power of the bourgeoisie.