Search This Blog

Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts

Wednesday, 3 June 2020

Relationship and the common link between Pantheism, Paganism the occult


1.) Mediums, Shamans are commonly used,  

2.) Channeling of the Spirits are commonly sought.

3.) Mind altering substances are commonly used.

4.) Numerology used.

5.) Astrology used

6.) Fortune telling.

7.) Occult practices.

8.) The Belief of connecting with nature, worshiping it, being part of a global consciousness.

9)  use of Idols and saints INTERMEDIARIES as a channel to God. In pure Monetheism (Islam) 
no intermediaries are used even in Gods attributes, such as power, provision, will, etc.. in Gods Worship.

in Satanism.

All of the Above and more ...

Notice how it inherently goes against Abrahamic faiths in the worship of one God. The purest, 
clearest in explaining the details, devoid of corruption is in ISLAM.






Thursday, 27 September 2012

Innocence of Muslims part 2


The recent film controversy "Innocence of Muslims" involving the disgusting forgeries against the Prophet Mohammad and Islam was not NOT banned under the current president of the United states of America under the (almost divine entrusted) constitutional principle of  "Freedom of speech"

What is the problem with this ?

Is is an issue regarding the Freedom of speech? Rather the problem is  a moral and philosophical issue.

Freedom of speech has Limits, despite the apparent Facade. You are not "Free" to say what you want since you maybe threatened by arrest of "Hate crimes", "Racism" or even "Terrorism" just to give you a few examples.

So, freedom of speech has limits, but these limits have not penetrated into "Defaming God and his prophets" At least the prophets of mass recognized religions. So again i state this is a moral and philosophical deficiency in U.S. or democracy that race, sexuality, politics, is held in higher esteem than God and the  best creation of Earth,  his prophets and messengers. Who are not protected by Law from the tongues of devils.


.







Sunday, 30 October 2011

Nature of Disbelief (Anti God)

Civilization has probably for the first time in history entered a Globalized period. In ancient times and until not long before
thought and culture were independent. Old Maya civilization developed Pyramid architecture independently some few thousand
years after the Egyptians, writing was for the most part developed independently by various civilizations at varying times .

The modern period has led to mass contact, movement, cultural exchange and thought. Culture and thought has been
the most striking about this (Global Village) period of civilization.
Which has led to global ideas which are shared and interlinked, the ideals of Democracy, Scientism, Darwinism,
Capitalism and Democraratism (which is the opposite of Freedom in that the
Majority control the minority [1])

Let's ponder and reflect about some of these ideals and its possible relationship with the occult and in the formation of the New World Order. Since Atheism is probably a deep characteristic in this New World and the secular/atheist mindset.

Darwinism and Occult Satanism and the Intention for the formation of Darwinism

The Epistemology Cartel
In The Architecture of Modern Political Power, Daniel Pouzzner outlines the tactics employed by elitist to maintain their dominance. Among them is: 'Ostensible control over the knowable, by marketing institutionally accredited science as the only path to true understanding' (Pouzzner, 75). Thus, the ruling class endeavours to discourage independent reason while exercising illusory power over human knowledge. This tactic of control through knowledge suppression and selective dissemination is reiterated in the anonymously authored document Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars:

If one has any doubt with this, then let us review a statement by a colleague of Darwin, that being Aldous Huxley who more succinctly defined this epistemological cartel:

“The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work' with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.”

- Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 116

This consciously induced paradigm shift facilitated the emergence of the elite's new theocracy. The official state-sanctioned religion of this theocracy was 'scientism': the belief that the investigational methods of the natural sciences should be ecumenically imposed upon all fields of inquiry. This form of epistemological imperialism is not to be confused with legitimate science. Researcher Michael Hoffman makes this distinction in his book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare:

“Science, when practiced as the application of man's God-given talents for the production of appropriate technology on a human scale, relief of misery and the reverential exploration and appreciation of the glory of Divine Providence as revealed in nature, is a useful tool for mankind. Scientism is science gone mad, which is what we have today.” (Hoffman, 49)

Hoffman further elaborates on the folly of scientism:

“The reason that science is a bad master and dangerous servant and ought not to be worshipped is that science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data, such as Piltdown Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its own agenda, be it Darwinism or 'cut, burn and poison' methods of cancer 'treatment'.” (Hoffman, 49)

and now the world saw this manipulation with the exposed climategate scandal. I don;t necessarily hold Hoffman to a high degree with regards to valid viewpoints, however I believe he was dead on accurate in these comments above when taking into consideration the events unfolding in front of our eyes in today's world

The Darwin Project
In the article 'Toward a New Science of Life,' EIR journalist Jonathan Tennenbaum makes the following the statement concerning Darwinism:

“Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons.” (Tennenbaum)

Given Darwinism's roots in occult Freemasonry and its expedient promotion of an emergent species of supermen (i.e., the elite), this is a fairly accurate assessment. Charles Darwin acted as the elite's apostle, preaching the new secular gospel of evolution. Darwinism could be considered a Freemasonic project, the culmination of a publicity campaign conducted by the Lodge

The Malthusian school is the basis for the pre-modern eugenicist school of thought which has no taken the form of transhumanism and bio-genetic engineering.

Malthus authored Essay on the Principle of Population, a treatise premised upon the thesis: 'Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetic ratio' (Malthus, 6). Although Malthus articulated his observations in succinct mathematical equations, the labyrinthine and complex machinations comprising the natural order typically defy such overly simplistic reductionism. Nonetheless, Malthus concluded that society should adopt certain social policies to prevent the human population from growing disproportionately larger than the food supply.

Malthus' genocidal policies specifically targeted the poor. For instance, one of his proposals suggested the implementation of the following measures:

“Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlement in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.” (Malthus, 412)

Anyways, another one of the many constituent worldviews comprising Darwinism is Hegelianism which is what has become known as the Hegelian dialectic. According to philosopher Georg Hegel, a pantheistic world spirit was directing 'an ongoing developmental (evolutionary) process in nature, including humanity,' which bodied itself forth as a 'dialectical struggle between positive and negative entities.' This conflict always resulted in a 'harmonious synthesis' (Taylor, 381-2). The same dialectical framework is present in Darwinism.

In Circle of Intrigue, occult researcher Texe Marrs reveals the Hegelian structure intrinsic to Darwinian evolution. The organism (thesis) comes into conflict with nature (antithesis) resulting in a newly enhanced species (synthesis), the culmination of the evolutionary process (Marrs, Circle of Intrigue, 127). Of course, in such a world of ongoing conflict, violence and bloodshed are central to progress. Thus, Darwin's theory 'gave credence to the Hegelian notion that human culture had ascended from brutal beginnings' (Taylor, 386).

thus this electrifying dogma gives rise to the "order out of chaos" culture that the We "The Powers" have become proficiently good at. This is the practice of forming a thesis (a problem), offering an antithesis (providing a solution), and thus land at the synthesis (the desired intent of the power holders).

Is it possible to create a summary for Atheist views? Let us try :

- Denial of God
- Denial of a Universal Truth
- Tendency towards Pantheistic "spirituality" or no spirituality.
- Subjective Morality (in reality no morality)
- Scientism as Religion i.e. empirical enquiry into understanding life as "Knowledge"
i,e, Other than Empirical enquiry knowledge is automatically dismissed as Fantasy. Epistemology takes the new form.
- Hereafter/After life taken as Fantasy, Natural Spiritual inclination of the self replaced with toxic substances.
- Democracy as the ideal for mankind replacing any divinity in Law giving.

________________________________________________________________________________

[1] note that the founding fathers of America believed that democracy was the
Worst form of Governance, so an exemplary Constitutional republic was formed giving unchangeable rights to citizens and i tend to agree with them. Government control and Taxation (exploitation) becomes an easy process.

Thursday, 24 June 2010

Reworking Pascals wager....



Lets take pascals wager into account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager ..
Has it any validility ? in purely philosophical terms .. ? Juwayni the islamic scholar born in present day Afghanistan presented a similar wager based on Islamic lines 1000 years before Pascal ...

Lets look at the main at some crititics of the the wager ..

"your inability to believe, because reason compels you to [believe] and yet you cannot, [comes] from your passions."

And as dawkins put it ...
"Would you bet on God's valuing dishonestly faked belief (or even honest belief) over honest skepticism?"

Further ...
"Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless,
it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on
his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping
him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc."

Lets set a framework for the wager .... Some premises in moving forward to the wager, so we can understand it with some sophistication.
Starting by explaining some premises
Religions provide the gateway for the afterlife, the evolution of humankind has had with it a "gateway" culture, we can understand this
"Gateway" culture as anything "spiritual" movement giving understanding to the afterlife ....

Furthermore, by adding some more intelligence and rules one can narrow down the "Religions/Gateways" that provide the greater "truth" via
certain principles ? For sake of argument some of these can be:

1) The Origin of the "Gateway"
2) The message of the "Gateway"
3) Miracles, claims of its truthfulness
4) Sensibility "it making sense"
5) Proofs to its truthfulness on its principles and how they weigh


Even to go as Far as weighting each religion we can define Pascals wager further .... and narrow down the possibilities of what "Gateways" are more truthful than others.

Betting on modern Skepticism ultimately leads you on betting your life on doubt. Dawkins point of "sacrificing" oneself for God is inaccurate, since
it is clearly "known" that those who have a "spiritual" element in their lives lead a better life and many "seek" this .... Sacrificing
oneself occurs in the rare occasions that ultimately can mean loss of ones life .... and is a complicated issue since Sacrificing oneself can occur
by sacrifing oneself in the persuit of wealth.

betting on skepticism is ultimately betting on doubt and not having sure knowledge ..


Conclusion

We can conculde that

- The wager is favoured to the religious inclined, since the Atheist has no belief in a "Gateway" and ultimately the "loss" is guaranteed for the Atheist and a chance exists for the Believer.

- That the Atheist Relies on his "Doubt" as his religion, via philosophy of modern skepticism and empirical observation as a means of belief

- The wager is not realistic since that the issue of belief in "the truth" cannot be obtained by everyone via rationality since we can easily say that
after rationality is exhausted and the Wager cannot be relied upon by its own principle (in that it "being a bet" on the "Gateway" ) since in Reality we cannot lead out lifes on a bet, since it itself negates belief in anything.

- The wager is a dangerous principle for the muslim since it can lead one in having "doubt" about the "Truth" Islaam and can ultimately destroy ones own focus and belief ...

- If one dosent believe in God and the afterlife one could strongly argue that the ONLY logical persuit in life should be in HEDONISM. And
that "honour" "Courage" Bravery" Are terms that should not exist in a land of Secular Atheists since Self preservation should be the
Ultimate Goal.



Thursday, 21 January 2010

Early Readings on Wittgenstein


My early Readings on Witggenstein (Tractatus Loico-Philosophicus)

- To create a new synatax/language for Philosophy to erradicate the
misinterpretations of the current body of knowledge and framewowork of doctrine

- That all philosophy (in it's past and current application) is non-sense has no sense

- That philosophy is like a tool that can be applied to any knowledge
to sharpen the understanding and aproach clarity and truth and is not initself
a doctrine ....

- It should not be used in transcendental and only in the bounded limits
of our reality


and much more .... ?


Wittgenstein cuts philosphy apart condemning it but with an elegant style !

He has a sort of arrogance to him, Wittgensteins work can be expanded upon
and developed further and more Framewoworks of aproach can be developed ...

I think Wittgenstein is philosophies worst enemy at the same time a friend
(maybe a contradictory proposition ?)

I find He shows the limits of philosophy and the HOLES in which it contains !



Monday, 4 January 2010

Douglas Murray and Extremism



http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20091230-1928a.mp3

Douglas Murray (http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/people)

is very smart in his rhetoric during this shallow debate,,,

He (Douglas Murray) is a person who is congratulated and praised by Christopher Hitchens " the "Babbling idiot.. " (paraphrasing) George Galloway, when George devasted Hitchens and "exposed him" on stage whilst Hitchens mumbled defiantly justifying the war in iraq via text book rhetoric! Hitchens and Dawkins are the famous "idiot Athesists" as so many people people and scholars put it....


Back To Douglas, the main areas of criticism being His ;

1.) Not Acknowledging to the deserved extent at which foreign policy has played in
this the new "War on Terror" .... If he Douglas had an ounce of honesty and truthfulness
( i guess being a Hitchenite this would not be possible ) he would of realised the state of affairs 10 years ago and the state of affairs now ...

Yes! There was Extremism to the level of a cult following rather than what we have now spreading like wildfire ...

2.) the dialogue and Douglas was a tremendous failure and the panel failed in being concise ;

that Extremism is one principle ... That anyone can be 95% inline with Orthodox islam
and fail on a single "principle" thus crossing the line into "Extremism" and rebellion .... That single principle is well known within islam but is close to the emotions of mankind ..."wars" "death", "occupation" (the fact we live in a highly charged information age) activate emotional instincts in the person and sometimes crossing the line (into extremism) is not an intellectual one but an emotion-linked one.

Thus, the Government could do well in supporting the Wahaby groups rather than
attacking them as they have credibility behind them and it is so ironic that they
attack a group whose Main Scholar "Ibn Baaz" issued a FATWA against Bin Laden and Al-Qaeeda in 1997. The famous illegitimate fatwa on Salman Rushdie's (head) has got so much Media attention but yet no-one has heard of Ibn Baaz's "infamous fatwa"

.... is this the political-Machinations (games) churning away yet again, i wonder .... ?

3.) I have personally been within 4 college and university ISOCS (Islamic societies) and the realities of politicized islaam were true in the 1990's as the "justified jehads" were inas full flow Bosnia, Chechnya etc.. but nowadays the spectrum of the ISOCS have changed and the politicizers have been driven underground and debunked such as in the case with HT, Muhajiroun etc, a major contributor and alternative to this trend has been "funnily enough" the spread of Wahabi'ism material and understanding !.... of which the government continues to blame .

4)

The Killings perpetuated by muslims
--------------------------------------

Douglas again simplifies and blatantly tries to "trick" listeners and covering up indirect killings ... those (indirect) killings that are perpertrated amidst the chaos that "occupation" brings and has which has always brought! the deaths
of civilians and the relative stability of Iraq is no mystery under Sadam as any iraqi family will tell you ....

The chaos that the war in iraq war should not be a "surprise". Just in 1994 a senior representative of the US government live on TV (as can be seen on youtube) gave the reason why the decision was not taken to chase Sadam into Baghdad in the first gulf war the "quagmire" and the exact details with the iranians, kurds etc. was given by him and "prophetically" is exactly what has happened now.

4) Douglas brings the attack to the Muslim, he says: "What about Darfur, Sadam, Why do you remain quiet about those muslim Tyrants?"

Well, Darfur is a recent phenomena and Sadam as "all muslims know" was attacked repeatedly on the pulpit and was Al-Qaeedahs number 1 target for oft so long ,,,,, Saying all of this We Muslims know that we have and will continue to have "internal" problems, this is the case for many nations and cultures .... by "internal" and "external" problems should and is seperated, as Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, Somalia are "external" problems .....









Wednesday, 23 December 2009

Erroneous islamic positions in debate ?


Muslims have a tendency to debate with almost UTOPIAN litter when debating or talking secularists .... We have a cycle of rehasing utopian visions in our stances !

Since many of the principles and rituals of islam Cannot or is hard to be understood by the libralists ... "Why do we fast? Why do we have to pray 5 times a day? Why do we do wear hijab etc. etc.

Sharia law is now a sticking point for the "new world order" ... We should not allow ourselves to fall into the dialogue the communistics or any of the other isms fell into ....

We also bring apologetics into the equation heavily ...

We should bring more of a realistic aim to the debate ....i advocate the following few points ...

1. Pointing out some benefits of sharia ...
i.e. abandonment of the Usury model and moving to another
2) Seperate segregated gender education increases understanding
3) etc...


5) Pointing out that many of the principles and rituals are linked to the orders of God and are for the believers, for example, a woman wearing hijab which is an order for the "believing women" i.e. a sign of Piousness for the individual person and since the state Caliphate is a state for the believers, muslims in general i..e comprising of majority of muslims, this law can be followed quite easily as is linked to God-Fearing-ness of the individual ....

6) Many of the non-believers believe that Sharia law will be applied when 95% of the population are non-muslims, this is an erroneous understanding and should be made clear from the beginning....

7) That they will have to all convert to islam ... which is an erroneous misconception although if the Sharia is implemented it will probably comprise of a majority of Muslims ...

8) Many principles of islam are easily understood and obeyed when a person is muslim since the foundations and roots of the nature of the person has been changed. And since Sharia law is a complete way they all compliment one another and are easily followed as part of the culture as a whole ... Therefore It is folly to go into sharia specifics ...

In concluding, Nit-Picking from Sharia which is the norm can be a dangerous way of dialogue, since no context is given and the individual is left out of the equation .. and importantly they will see Sharia through the secular glasses .... Give the context, give the Culture and norm of the society, be generalistic and not specific since being specific leads to confusion in understanding for the non-muslim.













Thursday, 17 December 2009

debate: can we live better lives without Religion?



I think Peter Cave was hit by a train in this debate ..alot of his
arguments had no substance and were slogans rather than actual points of principle.
Also i think some members of the audience didnt "get it" i.e. from the questions being
asked afterwards.
just some points on the debate:

1)The old cliche about "Religion causes wars" i think one should ask what is the
motivation "for the war" or the "person/leader" starting the war, as some people
point to George bush or even Hitler and say that he is Chrisitan war-mongerer, but i think the better
question is what is their "motivations" i.e. Oil, imperialism which are not religious motivations.
Thus the better understandin can be gained in whether religion causes wars or the motivation behind
the wars ...

2) The title of the debate i think should of been closer to "..can we live better
lives better lives under "Abrahamic faiths".." Rather than the Religion umbrella
since Hinduism, Jainism, Paganism etc.. are without a doubt opprssive ways of existence and
their ways of understanding God and should be irrelevant for the debate.
I think there was confusion
whether to debate with religion as a basis for "Better life" or islam as the basis.

3) Morality declines under Liberalism (as is proven) judge morality 100 years ago in many ways and morality, ethics etc. now ..... and i think the decline will contine even though evolution technologically has evolved not exactly inline with "quality of life" actually against it, see Lewis Mumford etc.

4) Real changes such as African-American converts in Prison (and whole Ghettos) to islam affirms the change that islam brings...

5) Peter Cave pointed to "Religious people always converting you", ACtually only Christian and muslim have a prolestyzing tradition .. NOT most others...

6) Peter Cave was not realistic as majority of people will not OR cannot comprehend
wisdom, morality, ethics, manerisms, humanism etc.. of a superior nature as MOST people
are simple, and only an elite few can philosophize to et to the truth but most (the masses) need
simple Do's and DONt's .... Just as Saleem Chagtai phoned BBC radio and gave a marvelous moral reasoning on BBC radio to Vanessa feltz that blew away reasonling of a 100 previous callers as most callers were using simplistic un-Wise Godly reasoning to justify a moral stance.

7) Wittgenstein was correct in ways as he set the limit to language preferring to see the world
in pictures (language a prejection of pictures) but he himself stated that God, etc. is outside the
realm of language , he is correct in some ways as our belief in God we use rationality just one
component of affimation.

8) Purely on Methematical-propablity Peter Cave should believe in God since he has nothing to lose as Reliion
is the gateway to the Afterlife, his Philosophy dismisses it totallally with his doubt
and focusses on humane morals ..

9) Cave kept on pointing to interprettion, i think you should of told him that 96-8% of muslims
are Sunni, with only 1 "real" Government being shia, that might of kept him quiet a bit more on
his flimsy interpretation point ...

10) Usury is forbdden also in Christian and Jewish faiths but just not practiced ... Maybe
foccussing on the EViLS of USURY as an Abrahamic tradition alone without Economic model would of quashed Cave ...


11) Someone should have told Cave that executions etc.. only happen under islamic authority and cannot be done without it ... since its a complete system and the cultural norm of the system would not be Adultery, fornication etc. like we have in Liberalism rather an abomination anti-Culture ...

Again, Cave had so many problematic statements ....












Monday, 7 December 2009

Rob Liddle (or Little?) of the Spectator


The debate around Rob's, the editorial cheif of the Spectator, article blog was embrolied in Controversy. In Robs Blog he stated the "fact" that "... gun crime is overwhelming the issue with black young males and what have they given us ? goat curry and rap-music"

Forgive the coarse quote recalled from memory in the late night her i am burning the midnite Oil.

His "demonization" of the Black folks again falls in the "BNP nick Grifin-esque" stylee... Mixing fact with Global uncontextualized realities .... Like the reality of "Rap" music being an African-American import stemming from the Ghetto's of the US. itself stemming from at least 50 years of oppression ...


Stating facts as some callers on the Radio stations has never been an issue in world debate .. What the problem is contextualizing "facts" and giving it an interpretation .... Europe has a history of failing to have the soft-touch in contextualising "facts".. The jews are EVIL ... they killed Christ ..... the Jews are evil they bla bla bla ,,,,,,

Uncontextualised "facts" and interpretations are the KEY to the harmonious (or disharmony) motion and intercourse of society !

Mixing isolated facts with specific incidents in isolated localities without bringing other factors such as poverty, culture and even history into context LEADS to an all out misinterpretation of reality !

This brings me to Napoloeans Mammoth Encyclopedia-Egypt written by the commissioned Orientalists to "understand" the natives of Egypt their ways, mode of thought for imperialistic ambitions .... How much "correct" interpretation from the "facts" was there in this Encyclopedia ?

Lest we forget that when we Britons migrate to the Costa-del-Sol or southern france, we all setup our own communities, create British Ghetto's and fail to learn the language ! Lest we not be hypocrits when other communities migrate to the Lands of the Britons and do the same .... Don't hit them with the Same brush we fail with .....









Monday, 30 November 2009

Thomas Aquinas


Recently i had been exporing the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas the foremost scholar of Catholicism .. The Summa represents an encyclopaedia of articles that were written defending and reaffirming the correct stance with regards to the nature of God, principles of faith etc.. within the Catholic realm ..

Thomas defended the understanding of God that in some ways can be deemed as islamic Thomas going against other Catholic questioners and fitting interpretation of the bible to suit his stance. His dialogue/knowledge of Averoes and Ghazali is well known .. the infinite nature of God is reaffirmed and his Magnificence and Mercy also ....

One has to wonder how much influence the Muslim scholars had upon Thomas .... One can only wonder ..... his influence from the islamic scholars

Just as the book by Miskawy on the early theories of evolution were translated into English in 1821 and we wonder of how much that knowledge transpired onto Darwin, or the Literature influences of Persian literature and islamic hadith upon the "classics" plays of Europe .... The unfortunate Copernicus of Poland was "found out" caught red handed, in that his "plagiarism" was too exact but at the same time not citing any references when borrowing material .....

When medical knowledge was shipped too Europe as well as the translated works of the greeks and hellenistic thought via the "translation movement" Europe may be hiding somewhat more than can be seen ,,,,



Saturday, 14 November 2009

Philosophy


Wittgenstein made a remarkable statement in his "Tractus" That the role of ethics, religion, mystical etc.. cannnot be used within philoshophy i.e, they are non sensensical when used within it, that the subject is transcendal and cannot be remarked upon with language .... Truth tables cannot be used since they and step out of the realm of this argument form ..

P (AND) Q = Z

If the prepositions are true then the answer (result) is truth ... but what if the prepositions have their own framework for deducing truth .... and they exist within another framework of another sort of truth .... The framework that has limits, have a frameowork well defined ...

This is a remarkable staement by Wittgenstein on the truth of "ethics" ...

I say they step outside the realm of logical deduction, Wittgenstein proposed a world of pictures .... language being limited ... explanation of the picutures being limited with language which is the goemetric projection between the pictures and the world ...

Morality, the world, like, death, surely they are above the realm of philosophical deduction, since they can be easily dismissed with the limited use of the written word and truth may be subjective, it may be qualitiative and dismissed with the written word ...

Maybe the nature of man cannot be expressed with philosophical deduction since the the variables concerned maybe so many and cross boundaries that they may not be viable to place within the limited framework of the truth being constructed .

Wittgenstein proposed that philosophy should be a tool to sharpen, make clear and distinct reality, as opposed to the cause of confusion .. .a novel thought.

Truth is also much clearer to some than others, take for example demonic posssession "or" in the west we call then "Ghosts" .. this is an unwritten "Truth" "fact" "undeniable" to the peoples of the East, they live with it as reality in life, and is in fact a science within their cultures i.e. in the case of Exorcism ... but for the peoople in the west this is "falshood" "imaginary" etc...
Truth in this case when deducing will have to cross cultural boundaries ...






Popular Posts