Some today posts, and The Source of Ethics: Man or Someone Else ?

Today I have made two comments on a post, you also read.

Modernists are still better, otherwise non-modernism is said to be a characteristic of Abu Jahl, and the common Muslim of today has every characteristic that was present in Abu Jahl. Abu Jahl was also very sure of the truth of his religion.

Doubts and atheists have always been and always will be. Abu Jahl was neither a skeptic nor an atheist, but he believed in God, who was nevertheless killed.

Doubt and atheism always present aspects of progressivism and innovation, and both were not present in Abu Jahl, who, like the Muslims, believed in religious traditions as true, and was against the modernists of his time. Basically, you are the trustee of the intellectual tradition of Abu Jahl, not the tradition of Anjanab.

This comment was raised by a brother.

Abu Jahl believed in God?

To which god

Is it the same God whom the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to preach?

What good is a web site if it simply "blends in" with everything else out there? "

My answer was this.

Did Abu Jahl and Anjab believe in two different gods? That is, God is not one but two?

Jews, Christians and others have different ideas about the rest of God. But having different ideas about God doesn't make God two, four or six.

The concept of God that Abu Jahl believed in was inherited by him, just as you or anyone else inherited the concept of God. In it, Abu Jahl was convinced of his concept of God, just as you are convinced of the concept of God borrowed from inheritance. Now Abu Jahl is wrong and how did you become right?

As far as idolatry is concerned, Hindus are now close to one billion. Even God's efforts did not eliminate idolatry. The Islamic God tried very hard, he himself used to throw stones at the polytheists in wars, but what spoiled them, nothing.

A man from St. Augustine asked, "What was God doing before he created the world?"

Augustine said it was hell for those who asked such questions.

I never discuss politics in my private gatherings, but touch on scientific and intellectual topics. This is because most people start with the affirmation of phenomena, while we start with the negation of phenomena. The act of negation is the first rational action. While the affirmation of phenomena is limited to sensory or comprehension only. They begin in affirmation, while our affirmation lasts, when we have reached the essence of phenomena. The whole process of reaching the essence depends on the rational activity.

 

The Source of Ethics: Man or Someone Else?

Pushing the deity out of the human being and then considering this deity as the source of morality and laying the foundation of morality on it, falls under the category of immorality under the concept of modern philosophy and human centrality and rational references. Every morality in which the deity is the central reference, and the morality that has reached man through the deity is immoral. Where there is no centrality of man, there is only alienation, alienation of man from himself, from his human status. There is no rational justification for the deity and its centrality in modern philosophy.

The intellect belongs to man, not to God. That is why the great Aristotle laid the foundations of his book "Ethics" twenty-four hundred years ago on the basis of reason. What could be more immoral than to first deport or decentralize man as a human being, and to replace him with a deity, and then to teach man morality through this deity? If man can acquire and practice false morality through the medium of God, then why can't he practice real morality on the basis of his own centrality? It must be borne in mind that the centrality of the deity can never be the basis of morality; Man's direct relationship with man is moral, and through God or someone else, is immoral.

 

 

The intellectuals here are also spokespersons

A few years ago, French philosopher Alan Bedouin, speaking on the British channel's program "Hard Talk", was sharply criticizing the policies of the French government. The host said that you are criticizing the policies of the best country like France while your socialism is long gone. The historical words that Bedio said there still resonate in my mind. "I'm a philosopher, not a journalist, and as long as I see new and better possibilities, I'll be very critical," Bedouin said. 

From this conversation I came to the conclusion that a true student of philosophy or philosophy should sharply criticize political and social issues, as long as he has in mind the idea of ​​building a better society. In our country which is trapped in the clutches of the worst political parties, where political parties are transferred by will and one person is made party leader for life, journalists and top intellectuals would be justifying their legitimacy. Are In response to one of my criticisms of the concept of hereditary politics, a superficial "intellectual" said that "democracy in Pakistan has not yet matured." I objected that becoming the spokesperson of these political parties would make democracy more abominable. People should be made aware that if there is dictatorship within political parties then such parties would not be democratic. 

Within France, the chances of improvement were slim, as most of the ideals had been achieved, but a philosopher like Bedouin criticizes it for showing more possibilities. Here in Pakistan, journalism is a buying and selling of conscience, everyone is acting on behalf of their party. But what is the problem with these "intellectuals"? Do they not have a better choice at the intellectual level on the basis of which people can be awakened? Criticize government policies, if they are hostile to the people, set the ideal so that people can realize a better alternative. That's how change happens.

What is the process of making a video?

What's wrong with a married man walking around naked in his room or house, running, or having sex to the best of his ability? What if you were going to the bathroom after having sex and your wife made a video from behind? We don't know anything about the lives of married people, what they do at night, but making videos of everything they do is an ugly moral act that must be condemned. In my opinion, making a video in such a situation should be legally acceptable. Suppose a man makes a video of his wife or girlfriend in such a situation? Now the person we don't like, is the will against him all good? Man has his own rules and regulations. So present proof of mental puberty.

British & Pakistan education system

I was overwhelmed when I entered the literature department at the University of Birmingham in the UK and attended class on the first day. I feel like I'm stuck in the wrong place. We came from Pakistan (although I had done MA International Journal from the same university before), and we could do nothing but memorize. The first week, however, passed, deciding what to do next. Four books were handed out the following week, including books on the culture of TS Elliott, Matthew Arnold, Raymond Williams and Terry Eagleton, and it was stated that they would be discussed next week. 

Well, I didn't know what to talk about in class next week, so I ran out of time to listen to others. Then there was a list of books to be read in the coming weeks, including Karl Marx's 18th Bromeier, Lucas's History and Class Consciousness, essays on Gramsci's culture, Tariq Ali's book on culture, Rolland Barth's mythology. Including many other books. 

Three months passed and the first part was completed. The students were then asked what to study in the next three months. There are three lists to choose from. I chose Philosophy of Aesthetics, and the books on the list included Plato's Republic, David Hume's Essays on Aesthetics, Bamgarten's Aesthetic Theory, Schiller's Letters, and Emmanuel Kant's Third Criticism. Many other books were included, including A Critique of Aesthetics. Well, I had to write three articles in three months. Have to write, semester is over. He rested for a while and then the head of the school called a meeting, in which he asked what would you choose for your final dissertation? Anyway, the training was done. I chose Trotsky's "Literature and Revolution" and wrote an essay on it. He later decided to write a dissertation on Kant's philosophy of aesthetics. As I write my dissertation on Trotsky's book, I repeatedly include philosophy. Supervisor's philosophy was not specialized. They did not stop me from saying that you were doing wrong, but held a meeting with the head of the school and gave me another philosopher and supervisor who had written several books on Wittgenstein. From there I set out to reconcile literature and philosophy and completed two dissertations, one on Trotsky and the other on Kant.

The supervisor never told me what to do. He would only meet me every other week and ask what he had done, and check the quality. There was a lot of trouble, they had left Pakistan, they had to do everything by themselves. However, the work was completed. I was given three titles to choose from. The reason was that I had reconciled literature and philosophy. Anyway, at least I didn't go down without explaining myself first.

The purpose of all this explanation was simply to show that in the British education system, the inside of a person is brought out, his abilities are enhanced. Curiosity is created in it, it is made active, not unknown. Nothing is pushed into it. We are given material in the form of books to think about, but the final decision rests with the student. In the UK, the process begins with schools. Later, during my experience in schools, I saw how a GCSC child criticizes Shakespeare. 

How he criticizes religion and how he sees freely what happened in the two great wars of the twentieth century, not that this child is part of any propaganda. Twelve-year-olds were asked during the Iraq war what they thought was right and wrong. Most of the children called it wrong and criticized the policies of their country and the training is such that the child does not get involved in propaganda. Fourteen-year-olds openly criticize British policies while studying history. Criticism of the church is a general attitude that is not taught to children, but is formed by children in their own minds, taking into account a wider historical context. 

There is no such thing as "British Studies" like "Pakistan Studies", which should be stuck in the minds. That is the true meaning of burning up of bad psychic imprints on one's mind and body. The education system here teaches man to be active, responsible, a believer in equality, respect for freedom of expression, and the tolerance required for a pluralistic society. There is a great creator hidden inside every child, this is the work of education and this is how to bring it out.

About philosophy, literary and critical theories

 The conditions of the country and the head and shoulders of the bald

Chhota Ganja arrived in the UK on a two-day tour with his team on the 11th. PML-N's Channel J is saying that the visit has been extended, as consultations are underway with "Badshah Salamat" (big bald) about the country's economic situation. Keep in mind that there is no economist bigger than Badshah Salamat in Pakistan at the moment.

Two things are skyrocketing in the country at the moment: one is inflation and the other is humiliation of liberals. Because the Liberals are now completely silent, a few who are alive but dead on the inside, are busy abusing Imran Khan, who has now turned from a politician to a religious reformer. While both the bald ones are eating sari pai and khadi here.

However, the extension of the visit to Chhota Ganja, which is said to be aimed at consulting King Salamat (the elder Ganja) on the economy, proves that the Prime Minister is about 20,000 feet above Chhota Ganja's Ganja. That is why he did not find any slave in the whole of Pakistan.

The work that Molotte had been doing for centuries, and which we had been teaching in schools since childhood, he has now begun. Now who can explain to this person that truth is important only because of truth and not because of any deity. I wish this man had read Plato's dialogue in which the great Plato had concluded with reference to goodness that goodness is valued only because of goodness. The limit has been reached.

Many friends keep asking questions about philosophy, literary and critical theories. Obviously, it is not possible to answer everyone. Over the past few weeks, many questions have arisen about postmodern "theoretical" structures, metaphysics. Most friends are not aware of the basics. When they are asked that there are some professors in Pakistan, contact them, they reply that "they themselves have no knowledge." However, in the next few days I will try to review the "central" issues of structures and post-structures. I will give a one hour live lecture for this, and then your live questions will be taken. The lecture will be given in the light of the questions inboxed by your friends.

Philosophical and Religious God

A religious thinker has stated that the reason for denying God in philosophy is ontological argument. While we say that the position of religions is also ontological. For example, the greatest theologian brings only the "argument" as to where the universe came from and then without argument claims that it was created by God. The question then goes, Who created God? And how is it possible that God created the universe? It is the responsibility of the one who claims to have created the universe to make this point clear and to prove it. However, we see that God has been missing for many centuries for unknown reasons. We've documented his disappearance many times, but it's possible he did. I don't know why he is so ashamed. Since he cannot come forward, lies are being spread in his name.

Although the basis of ontological argument is philosophical, the great Aristotle, in his book Science of Ontology, discussed in detail in his book Metaphysics Four, discovered a first principle which is not the creator of the universe. Was, in fact, the cause of motion in the universe. Religious people do not know that if there is no ontology, meaning no existence, or no universe, matter, etc., then there is no such thing, and if there is no such thing, then there is no God, and there is no belief in God. So where will the debate come from? However, it is true that religious gods have lost their case due to their ontological position. If God's own books do not offer any proof of his existence, should philosophers give the answer? This is ridiculous.

Now the problem is that whenever religious people bring arguments in favor of God, instead of bringing their own religious books, which they say were sent by the same God, they use the arguments of these few philosophers. There are those who see the Creator in the universe, but do not acknowledge the folly of these religions in the name of God and in His books. The principle is that God proves Himself through His own books. But that is not the case. The authors of these religious books, as far as they know, claim to be nothing more than stupidity.

Religious people do not even know that the philosophical God is only to the extent of the universe, and he does not interfere in the affairs of the people. As Aristotle said, God does not know the details, if He has, He only knows the Universals. Unlike the philosophical god, the religious god who considers it necessary to get involved in every issue, cannot even explain himself. Philosophical God, if there is one, is great in that He has made man active, endowed him with intellect, the simultaneous presence of intellect and revelation gives rise to irreconcilable contradictions, and the whole history of religions confirms this. That is, whenever the intellect is active with all its might, the manipulations of revelation begin to take place, and then its defenders start fighting the rationalists. If God is rational, then He needed to create rationalists. Otherwise, only murderers have been created who are always engaged in subjugating the intellect to revelation, instead of elevating it to the level of revelation. Bring it to the level of. They take pleasure in bringing down the intellect.

The god of religion is something else. The god of Judaism, for example, was a racial and tribal god. If you have read the Bible you must have read that he used to talk to Abraham through Isaac, Jacob and later other "prophets". For example, in the Jewish tradition, the "Ten Commandments" were spoken and written by God Himself to Moses. The God of the Jews was racist, and unjustifiably hated other races. Ordered to kill them, even to kill their cattle. There was no reason other than that he wanted to be given such and such land, such and such land.

The God of Christianity was not universal either. Christ said in the Gospel that He only came in search of the lost sheep of the Jews. So the God of Christianity was also racist. His characteristic, however, was that he took on a human form and was finally crucified, freeing and activating the human intellect. And this idea formed the basis of modern Western philosophy that after Christ human will is free and later Kant provided rational basis for morality and discovered that there is no morality without free will.

The God of the Arabs was also a god of the Arabs before Muhammad. Then he used it. He made God not universal but very bigoted and biased. He was so biased that he fought wars with the infidels alongside the Muslims and stoned the infidels.

Now, knowing all this religious nonsense, a reasonable person must become an atheist, provided that faith has not taken away from him all his ability to think. Philosophers sought to reconcile Christian philosophy with the concept of "essential existence." Therefore, the concept of obligatory existence is not religious in itself, but has been established by rationalist philosophers, which is used by theologians. The concept of the essential existence of God was discovered in the tenth century by the Christian theologian St. Anselm. 

The modern founders of this concept were the German philosophers Leibniz and Wolf. But Kant dispelled his metaphysical rhetoric, making it clear that God is merely an idea of ​​reason, which cannot be verified by sensory experience. Therefore, the concept of essential existence was logically shattered. These issues have not reached these people, because they are ignorant of the history of philosophy, they come up with the same old "arguments" which have been thrown in the dustbin of history.

Pakistan's temperature has risen to dangerous levels. remember!

If we do not tolerate this heat today, then ten years later our children will die in our own hands from global warming.  The only solution is to plant trees.  Mango, Jaman, Litchi and Falsa seasons are at their peak.  In this regard, we request you not to throw the seeds and pods of these fruits in the trash after eating the fruits, but to wash them and put them in your car etc. and whenever you pass by such a place.  Where there are no trees, etc., throw the seeds and pods there, or in places along the highways.  After a few days the rainy season will show its color and most of the seeds you have sown will germinate and by the grace of Allah will become trees.  Trees are not only a charity but also the biggest need of Pakistan and the world at this time, this small action of ours will be the first drop to make Pakistan a green Pakistan.  And it is an investment that will benefit our future generations.

Successful experiment of sending electricity one kilometer away in the air without wires

We know that conductors are required for the transmission of electricity and almost all metals are conductors but most of the wires made of silver or copper are used for the transmission of electricity. Scientists have been trying for some time to get rid of this entanglement of stars. One of the earliest successes in this regard is the successful experiment of the US Navy Research Institute, which for the first time has been able to transmit electricity from one place to another without the use of wires.

 Experts have described it as an "extraordinary development" in which the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) has sent about one and a half kilowatts of electricity one kilometer away without a wire. The experiment was conducted in a military research field in Maryland. The principle of this experiment is very simple and interesting. It converts large amounts of electricity into the first microwave radiation. These microwave rays travel through the air to the receiver where it is converted into direct current or DC electricity.

 In this experiment, some amount of energy was wasted and 60% of the electricity reached from one place to another, but this rate is higher than the expectations of the experts. The experiment also showed that birds, humans and trees were not harmed.

 The success of this experiment has shown that the day is not far when electricity can be transmitted from one place to another without any wires. On the other hand, according to experts, this technology will be equally effective in space and will also be able to send electricity to the earth 24 hours a day through large solar panels in the Earth's orbit.