515: Arabic Philosophy, the Introduction...

Well, my friends, this is going to be a difficult exercise: Arabic philosophy. The MacmIllan Encyclopedia has a lemma “Arabic philosophy”, but that refers straight to the lemma “Islamic philosophy”

Thus you may call it either way. I preferred Arabic philosophy just to escape the use of “Islamic”. I can’t help it, but words like “Islam” or “Islamic” carry rather unpleasant connotations for me.

Of course one might say immediately, that this is due to all kinds of prejudices I have regarding Islam or Muslims or what is happening in the Arabic world.

Initially I thought that Eastern, Chinese and Indian philosophy would be somewhat troublesome to handle philosophically due to its heavy load of theology.

But now that I concentrate on Arabic philosophy, where the term Islamic philosophy is more generally used, it seems, I get the feeling that this is an even more difficult subject to handle.

Not only because of the religious connotations and metaphysics of the philosophy, but especially because of its political topicality.

When we hear the word “Islam” we  are easily inclined to see images of bloodthirsty mobs of the evening news, exploded car bombs and the like.

And then, when you dig into the literature you read, that reason is central to Islam. I beg you pardon….reason? Through the fog of all my prejudices and bias, I try to get hold of that observation: reason.

But it is true. And history shows this clearly. It also made me think of the Indian philosophers, who first wished to decide on the question “What is the source of knowledge? Perception, inference, intuition , revelation?” before starting the debate.

The dominance of reason in Islamic philosophy and thence inference as the source of knowledge has its clear roots.

There is within Islam, as in many other theocentric cultures, a conflict between the dictates of reason and the prescriptions of revelation. 

But reason and the use of the human intellect, though seen by some as challenges to the all-encompassing mind of God, have occupied a position of unusual importance in the tradition of  Islamic thought.

For Islamic thinkers the perennial problem was to strike a precarious and sometimes dangerous balance between reason and belief.

Just listen to this:

- quote -

Through reason we humans are made superior to inarticulate beasts so that we can own them and train them, tame them and manage them in ways by which advantages accrue to us as well as to them. 

Through reason we apprehend all that by which our life is elevated and made beautiful and good; through reason we attain our desires and the fulfillment of our wishes .... 

Through reason we perceive distant and hidden matters that are veiled from us; through reason we know the shape of the earth and of the firmament and the magnitude of the sun and moon as well as the other stars, together with their distances and their motions. 

Through reason we arrive at knowledge of the Creator -He is exalted!- which is the most immense knowledge we can to attain, and the most beneficial object of our aspiration. 

In sum, reason is something without which our state would be the state of beasts, infants, and the insane.

- end quote -

These are the words of Muhammad ibn Zakariyā Rāzī  (854 CE – 925 CE), a Persian polymath, physician, alchemist and chemist, philosopher.

So, I think it is quite reasonable to pay attention to Islamic philosophy with an open mind.

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

From Africa to Zen, R.C. Solomon & K.M. Higgins

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

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, P.Adamson & R.Taylor

The Discussion

[13:17] herman Bergson: Thank you :-)

[13:18] Zanicia: Bravo

[13:18] herman Bergson: Thank you ZANICIA

[13:18] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks...the floor is yours ^_^

[13:19] Zanicia: Incredible insight into how they thought....well one in particular!

[13:19] Bejiita Imako: yes this was something for sure

[13:19] herman Bergson: Yes it is most interesting and contrary to what people think in general about Islamic philosophy

[13:20] Zanicia: however...'reason' is it's own variable

[13:20] herman Bergson: One thing is already interesting...

[13:20] herman Bergson: Islamic thought came to life about 700 to 900 CE....

[13:21] herman Bergson: so much later than Greek or Indian philosophy

[13:22] Zanicia: please take a chair with us Areyn

[13:22] herman Bergson: But it is a delicate subject...as soon as the word "Islam" is mentioned....

[13:22] Areyn Laurasia: trying to... sorry.. having technical issues

[13:22] herman Bergson: Like we have that crazy politician here in the Netherlands who pleads against islam in the Netherlands...

[13:23] Zanicia: you were right, Herman, to mention prejudices

[13:23] herman Bergson: I cant deny it....

[13:24] herman Bergson: I have may personal ideas about the arabic world....

[13:24] Merlin: I dont know about someone in NL but I think something happened in Denmark

[13:24] Zanicia: in light of recent world events, I think the feeling is worldwide

[13:24] herman Bergson: But I'll set them aside and  I will try to show you the historical roots of Islamic philosophy

[13:25] Zanicia: yes

[13:25] herman Bergson: the cartoonist, you mean Merlin?

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:25] Merlin: Aah yes that was it

[13:25] Zanicia: there can't be any sort of reason until we examine things from all aspects

[13:26] Merlin: I have got brainwashed into not daring to say anything about Muslims

[13:26] herman Bergson: made a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb on is head or something like that...

[13:26] herman Bergson: That is what I tried to say too Merlin.....

[13:26] Merlin: Yes it think someone I know found them on the internet

[13:26] Merlin: but it wasn’t me, honestly

[13:26] Merlin: hehe

[13:27] Merlin: Thinking also about Mr Snowdon

[13:27] herman Bergson: But I think we'll try to avoid discussing such more cultural, non philosophical issues :-))

[13:27] Zanicia: don't you remember the guy in England who had to go into hiding because of the book he wrote?

[13:27] Merlin: Salman Rushdie

[13:27] Zanicia: (name escapes me for the moment)

[13:27] Zanicia: yes that's it

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:27] herman Bergson: Ruslie or something like that.....

[13:27] Oceane: yes

[13:27] herman Bergson: He wrote that book

[13:28] herman Bergson: He is still alive btw :-))

[13:28] Merlin: I think he is still under protection even now

[13:28] Oceane: ㋡

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: and the ayatollas in iran came after him so he fled

[13:28] Merlin: but he appears on TV occasionally

[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes he does

[13:29] herman Bergson: I 'll try to be careful in what I say...otherwise they'll call a fatwa over me too :-)

[13:29] Zanicia: lol

[13:29] Merlin: hehehehe

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: lol

[13:29] Zanicia: but thinking back to the quote........

[13:30] Merlin: Then there's LL too!

[13:30] Zanicia: centuries before God dictated to man that the world was a sphere....

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: well as son there is a small think like someone painted mohammed ect hell break lose it seems

[13:30] herman Bergson: What about it ZANICIA?

[13:30] Zanicia: 'civilised men had reasoned that the world was flat

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: that i dont call reason however i also think the islamic ideas are distorted heavily by these guys from what it was in the beginning

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: and thats why it is like this

[13:31] Zanicia: the patheitic thing is.....there is still a 'flat earth society'!!!!

[13:31] Zanicia: in 2014

[13:31] Merlin: Yes Bejiita... people will just believe what the WANT to believe

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: i guess so

[13:31] herman Bergson: People believe what they are made to believe, I would say.....

[13:32] Merlin: yes that too

[13:32] Zanicia: I believe this

[13:32] herman Bergson: And ZANICIA....one important point is, that knowledge can be obtained by inference....

[13:32] Areyn Laurasia: don't they have the ability to question?

[13:32] herman Bergson: not just mere perception.....

[13:32] Merlin: Well I often mention Dawkins and he thinks it is terrible to talk about a Muslim child etc

[13:33] Merlin: or any religion ...

[13:33] herman Bergson: for that Arab philosophy leaned heavily on Aristotle's logic...

[13:33] Merlin: because a child clearly has not made up its mind

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: true

[13:33] Zanicia: "beast/child/insane"

[13:33] herman Bergson: I would put it more general, Merlin...I just wonder about the phenomenon called religion as a part of human behavior

[13:34] herman Bergson: and as we will see...... the conflict between reason and belief...revelations

[13:35] herman Bergson: This will be an interesting issue in Islamic philosophy....

[13:35] herman Bergson: and also its metaphysics....

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: its a complicated subject for sure

[13:35] herman Bergson: Especially because it still is stuck with it, it seems

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:36] Areyn Laurasia: wish I had caught the class earlier

[13:36] herman Bergson: Tomorrow or the day after I'll post it on the blog Areyn...

[13:36] Areyn Laurasia: Thank you

[[13:38] herman Bergson: It really is a challenge

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: will be really interesting

[13:38] Zanicia: yes

[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes...we have to look past and through the picture the media show of Arabic culture

[13:39] herman Bergson: We'll see how far we'll get ^_^

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: ok

[13:39] Zanicia: I have long suspected we only get what we are fed from the one-sided media

[13:39] herman Bergson: So...thank you all again for your interest :-)

[13:40] Zanicia: Thank you Herman

[13:40] .: Beertje :.: thank you Herman ㋡

[13:40] herman Bergson: We'll see ZANICIA.....

[13:40] herman Bergson: can be an interesting experiment

[13:40] Oceane: thank you herman, great class ㋡

[13:40] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-)

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: this was a nice start

[13:41] herman Bergson: Enjoy tyour Steampunk party ^_^

[13:41] Areyn Laurasia: Sure sounds interesting

[13:41] Oceane: well it will take awhile till the party starts ;)

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: aa ill check that out maybe¨

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: _=

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:42] .: Beertje :.: have a goodnight all en till next time

[13:42] Areyn Laurasia: have a great night, bye everyone

[13:42] Merlin: Bye Beertje

[13:42] herman Bergson: you too Beertje

[13:42] Zanicia: you too everybody

[13:42] Merlin: and everyone

[13:42] Zanicia: Goodnight

[13:43] herman Bergson: Bye all :-)

[13:43] Merlin shouts: ㋡

514: A Conclusion of Indian Philosophy

What fascinates me most is not philosophy with all its theories, but primarily the human mind which produces all these thoughts, in other words the question: what makes it tick.

Then it is exciting to see how minds, separated from each other in space and time ponder about the same questions. Not just for a day or so but for centuries.

In the previous lecture I introduced to you the Carvaka philosophy, Indian materialism. Materialism is the name given to the metaphysical doctrine which holds that matter is the only reaIity. In this respect it is opposed to spiritual interpretations of the universe.

One of the chief topics of Indian philosophers was epistemology, that is the question “How far can we know reality?”  How does knowledge originate and develop ? This last question involves the problem: What are the different sources of knowledge?

The Carvaka philospohy hold that only perception can be the source of pramana…source of knowledge. Almost all other schools, among others Hinduism, claimed that inference is a valid source too.

But inference cannot fulfill  these conditions, because when we infer, for example,the existence of fire in a mountain from  perception of smoke in it, we take a leap in the dark, from the perceived smoke to the unperceived fire.

Here comes the first interesting observation. The Indian philosophers used a kind of logic, which Aristotle would develop to its fullest, three hundred years later: the syllogism.

A syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two (the major and the minor) or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

All cases of smoke are cases of fire, this mountain is a case of smoke, therefore, this this mountain is a case of fire. Look at the blackboard for details.

The Carvaka points out that this connection would be acceptable only, if the major premise, stating the invariable relation between the middle term (smoke) and the the major (fire), were beyond doubt. 

But this invariable relation can be established only if we have knowledge of all cases of smoke and all cases of fire. 

This, however, is not possible, as we cannot perceive even all the cases of smoke and fire existing now in different parts of the world, to speak nothing of those which existed in the past or will exist in the future.

No invariable, universal relation  can, therefore, be established by perception, but no supernatural principle need be supposed to account for the properties of experienced objects of nature. There is neither any guarantee that uniformity perceived in the past would continue in future.

This all may sound rather technically to you, but it is what the human mind in India about 500 BCE produced. And then you read in Wikipedia about the syllogism “In its earliest form, defined by Aristotle,……” NOT TRUE !

But there is an other interesting issue here: the truth value of a universal statement, what we use to call a generalization: All A are B. and the Carvaka observation, that perception never can lead to definite knowledge.

There was one philosopher, who made it the core of his philosophy of scientific discovery: Karl Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994), more than 2000 years later.

He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, 

and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historico-cultural settings.

Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. 

Tho not related at all, we see here the same line of reasoning as we saw in the Carvaka philosophy, in people who lived in a completely different cultural and historical world. That makes philosophy and the mind such intriguing subjects.

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

From Africa to Zen, R.C. Solomon & K.M. Higgins

An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, S. Chatterjee & D. Datta

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

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you :-))

[13:23] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T  * ::::::::::

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ah ㋡

[13:23] CONNIE Eichel: :)

[13:23] Gemma Allen: i recall popper

[13:24] Guestboook van tipjar stand: Gemma Cleanslate donated L$50. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!

[13:24] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks...the floor is yours :-))

[13:24] Qwark Allen: me to

[13:24] herman Bergson: YEs...and the exciting thing is that the human mind already formulated his ideas 500 BCE....

[13:25] Qwark Allen: reviewing karl popper

[13:25] Gemma Allen: ♥ LOL ♥

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:25] herman Bergson: That is....we have understood the weakness of the generalization form the beginning

[13:25] Gemma Allen: there is nothing new under the sun they say

[13:25] .: Beertje :.: don't se have 1 collective mind from the beginning?

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: true

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: in Sweden we say drawing it all over one comb about generalisation

[13:26] herman Bergson: no Beertje...we havent...unless you believe in people like Jung

[13:26] herman Bergson: same expresion in Dutch Bejiita....rhe comb

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: ok ㋡

[13:27] herman Bergson: I know these are not really controversal ideas....on the contrary....

[13:28] herman Bergson: the main point is that they show that as Gemma said....since 500BCE there seems to be little new under the sun :-))

[13:28] Qwark Allen: omg

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: seems so yes

[13:28] Qwark Allen: under what point of view?

[13:28] Gemma Allen: probably 10000 bc

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: many ideas are very old for sure

[13:29] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: between all is from materialism and all is from spiritualisme or so to speak , between the perception or the inference. what is left for us ?

[13:29] herman Bergson: from the logical and epistemological point of view Qwark....

[13:29] .: Beertje :.: if you know that the earth is billions of years old, 1000 bc is just a second ㋡

[13:29] Gemma Allen: Yes-ah!

[13:30] herman Bergson: That indeed Beertje..

[13:30] .: Beertje :.: we only are at the beginning

[13:30] herman Bergson: What would you like to be left for us Alaya?

[13:30] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: something else than a duality

[13:30] Gemma Allen: ah

[13:31] herman Bergson: There is one thing....

[13:31] herman Bergson: our mind has a peculiar inclination to think binary....

[13:31] herman Bergson: warm - cold

[13:31] herman Bergson: light - dark

[13:31] herman Bergson: big - small

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:32] herman Bergson: hgh - low

[13:32] herman Bergson: and so on....

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: fast slow

[13:32] .: Beertje :.: rl-sl/lol

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: hhaha

[13:32] CONNIE Eichel: hehe

[13:32] Gemma Allen: ha

[13:32] herman Bergson: then next step is that we love to appluy this binary structure to reality....

[13:32] Qwark Allen: poor rich

[13:32] herman Bergson: name it....Qwark...:-)

[13:32] herman Bergson: right  - wrong...

[13:32] herman Bergson: good - bad

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: true false

[13:33] herman Bergson: I guess we can go on for ever

[13:33] herman Bergson: Ahhh Bejiita...

[13:33] Qwark Allen: more money, more shopping

[13:33] herman Bergson: You got a HOT one....

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ok

[13:33] herman Bergson: TRUE -FALSE

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: true and false i guess is same as the logical statement in a computer too

[13:33] herman Bergson: worls so perfectly well when used in logic....:-)

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: always when i do programming

[13:33] Qwark Allen: far close

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: boolean logic, 1 = true 0 = false

[13:34] herman Bergson: right....

[13:34] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: its possible that from our perception it look true and from a syllogisme perspective , it look false

[13:34] herman Bergson: but this love for binary thinking ...dualism...is that  reality?

[13:34] Areyn Laurasia: in a way

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: thats just reflecting the high and low things, and nothing in between

[13:35] herman Bergson: I dont want to lecture you on logic Alaya, but you are not quite right...

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: works in computers that are digital but what the computer represent to us is analog as is the world in general

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: contineous values

[13:35] herman Bergson: the FORM of the syllogism is perfect logically....

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: not just 2 startes

[13:36] herman Bergson: but it works like this...

[13:36] herman Bergson: if you put statements in the form of a syllogism.....

[13:36] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: well, it snot the logic, tha ti was exposing, but the possibility that thee smoke , was not from fire,, as suposed,,, but from,, something else,,, since the perception spotted smoke,, and the assumption , fire, but it might be vapor

[13:36] herman Bergson: then you can say....

[13:36] Areyn Laurasia: like the professor's pipe? :)

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes, steam or something similar

[13:36] herman Bergson: IF AND ONLY IF these major and minor statements are TRUE

[13:36] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: in that manner they aren’t opposing

[13:37] herman Bergson: then the conclusion is 100% TRUE

[13:37] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: but in other manner they may be oposing,

[13:37] herman Bergson: But the philosophical debate is on how to deside when a statement IS true....

[13:38] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: i see

[13:38] herman Bergson: that is beyond the logical form of a syllogism

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:38] herman Bergson: so ..in fact..logic has nothing to do with TRUTH,...

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: can be false as well

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: its just statements

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: just like in a computer program

[13:39] herman Bergson: It only says...that IF you use TRUE statements in a perfect logical reasoning...the conclusion has to be TRUE too

[13:39] Qwark Allen: Lamark come to my mind, about that

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: i can say to the machine that only if that AND alsothat is true then the resunt is true but i can also do the opposite

[13:40] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: i think a statement isn’t alone and separated from the person speaking, its background and experiences

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: not just but many things need to be in a certain condition to be true

[13:40] herman Bergson: a matter of fact is , Alaya....

[13:40] herman Bergson: I am dead or I am alive...

[13:40] herman Bergson: dead

[13:41] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: when a clif is hi, it is hi relatively to y hability to jump

[13:41] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: my*

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:41] herman Bergson: If someone says I am alive...his personal interests erc...do not matter there

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: for an ant 1 m is like mt everest

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: its relative

[13:42] herman Bergson: that is another discussion :-)

[13:42] herman Bergson: I love myrmecology...but it is not the issue here today :-)

[13:42] CONNIE Eichel: :)

[13:42] herman Bergson: But...as you see...

[13:42] herman Bergson: and that was my point....

[13:43] herman Bergson: some very basic ideas which have a real impact on our culture too...

[13:43] herman Bergson: already existed in India 5000 BCE

[13:43] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: a statement might be, not completely false of true, so to speak

[13:43] herman Bergson: sorry 500 BCE

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:43] CONNIE Eichel: :)

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:44] herman Bergson: Ohhh Alaya.....there you hit a philosophical berve :-))

[13:44] herman Bergson: nerve....

[13:44] Bejiita Imako: the real world is analog, there are no absolute states

[13:44] Bejiita Imako: like in a digital system

[13:44] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: hehe

[13:44] herman Bergson: You want to discuss the truth conditions of a statement.....

[13:44] Bejiita Imako: so yes Alaya i agree

[13:44] Areyn Laurasia: like the schrödinger's cat

[13:44] herman Bergson: That is exactly what the old Indian philosopher did.....

[13:45] Bejiita Imako: at least some things can be partially both true or false

[13:45] Bejiita Imako: depent how you see it i guess

[13:45] herman Bergson: Their first concern was to establish an understanding about the way you come to knowledge....

[13:45] herman Bergson: like you saw today....

[13:45] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:46] herman Bergson: Hinduism accepts inference as a proper means....Carvaka rejects it and only relies on perception

[13:46] Gemma Allen: interesting

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:46] herman Bergson: All history of philosophy is focused on this debate....HOW CAN WE KNOW.....

[13:46] Gemma AllenGemma Allen GIGGLES!!

[13:46] Gemma Allen: ...LOL...

[13:46] CONNIE Eichel: hehe

[13:47] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:47] herman Bergson: and those old Indian philosophers already understood the problem

[13:47] Areyn Laurasia: experiment

[13:47] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: the detail that prevent us to statuate about an absolute might be our materialist expectation, as well as syllogistic expectation

[13:47] herman Bergson: If you say experiment you already have chosen for perception as the way to know

[13:48] herman Bergson: What kind of absolute are you referring to Alaya???

[13:48] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: that we ought to statuate always about the fact

[13:49] herman Bergson: Or should I ask...how do you know of being there some absolute ?

[13:49] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: i made a mistake,

[13:49] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: the details that prevent us to statuate about as an absolute,

[13:49] Gemma Allen: I may make class thursday I hope

[13:50] herman Bergson: don’t understand the meaning of the verb "statuate"...:-)

[13:50] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: like it happend many time s in philosophy talk, people asking, so, what conclusion did yuo arrive too

[13:50] Gemma Allen: usually more questions than answers Alaya

[13:50] Areyn Laurasia: makes one think more

[13:51] Bejiita Imako: hehe true

[13:51] herman Bergson: Indeed Gemma...

[13:51] Gemma Allen: always

[13:51] herman Bergson: if you want answers..go to the sciences

[13:51] Gemma Allen: that is how we continue so long

[13:51] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:51] Gemma Allen: we never take the exam

[13:51] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: statuer, in french, , ok my bad, ill find better transaltion

[13:51] Qwark Allen: hehhehehe

[13:51] .: Beertje :.: lol Gemma

[13:51] herman Bergson: of course not Gemma....

[13:51] Bejiita Imako: hehe hope we never do, this is infinite exploration for sure

[13:51] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:51] herman Bergson: you would get en F if you came up with answers :))

[13:51] Gemma Allen: Yes-ah!

[13:51] Gemma Allen: lol

[13:51] Bejiita Imako: hahaha

[13:52] Alaya Chépaspourquoi: infinite exploration loll

[13:52] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:52] herman Bergson: Well..this was again a nice discussion....

[13:52] Gemma Allen: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:52] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)

[13:52] Gemma Allen: going fishing

[13:52] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation.....

[13:52] Bejiita Imako: ok

[13:52] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆**   **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆**   **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`

[13:52] Qwark Allen: thank you

[13:52] Qwark Allen: was very nice

[13:52] .: Beertje :.: thank you Herman ㋡

[13:52] Gemma Allen: Bye, Bye  ㋡ 

[13:52] Gemma Allen: for now

[13:52] herman Bergson: Class dismissed for Gemma needs to go fishing :-)

[13:52] Bejiita Imako: cu son

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: heheh

[13:53] .: Beertje :.: hahah

[13:53] herman Bergson: Thank you all :-))

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: a while since i did that

[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: great class :)

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: need to take it up again sometime

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: its nice

[13:53] herman Bergson: Thank you CONNIE :-)

[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: :)

[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: kisses you all, till next class :)

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again

[13:54] Bejiita Imako: bye

[13:54] herman Bergsonherman Bergson blushes

[13:54] Areyn Laurasia: gotta run.. noisy cat..

[13:54] CONNIE Eichel: byee :)

[13:54] Bejiita Imako: hehe

513: Indian Materialism

There always comes a moment that some people grow tired of all the stories, mythology, gods and supernatural beliefs. They want to see hard facts.

It happened in Western philosophy, when in the 5th century BCE philosophers like Leucippus (440 BCE) and his pupil, Democritus formulated their ideas on atomism.

The theory of Democritus and Leucippus held that everything is composed of "atoms", which are physically, but not geometrically, indivisible; 

that between atoms, there lies empty space; that atoms are indestructible; have always been, and always will be, in motion; that there are an infinite number of atoms, and kinds of atoms, which differ in shape, and size.

It is always an exciting observation in philosophy…yes…philosophy can be exciting…. that similar ideas have developed elsewhere too. Not a few years ago but thousands of years ago, even earlier than in Ancient Greece.

In India the Jain,  Ajivika and Carvaka schools of atomism may date back to the 6th century BCE.  I’ll focus here on the Carvaka school. It emerged as an alternative to the orthodox Hindu pro-Vedic schools.

I’ll elaborate on this Carvaka school of philosophy, because it is a true materialist or naturalist philosophy. As a philosophical theory, naturalism aligns philosophy with science and the natural world—rejecting the supernatural.

Naturalists view human beings with their different endowments as mere ‘objects’—parts of nature—to be described, analyzed and causally explained. 

The claim is that it is possible to have an absolute and pure objective view of human beings and their behavior. As you can imagine, not a really popular approach among believers in supernatural things, like gods.

In a Indian text from the 5th century BCE we read: “O, the highly wise! Arrive at a conclusion, therefore, that there is nothing beyond this Universe. Give precedence to that which meets the eye and turn your back on what is beyond our knowledge.”

It is interesting to see, that there have always been philosophers, who opposed to metaphysical theories and claims of the existence of supernatural beings.

Also interesting is to observe that such schools in philosophy have been often attacked vigorously by religious parties. As for Carvaka philosophy, there is no continuity after the 12th century, probably eclipsed by Hinduism.

Our understanding of Cārvāka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of its ideas by other schools. The following quote is therefore typical of the situation:

"Though materialism in some form or other has always been present in India, and occasional references are found in the Vedas, the Buddhistic literature, the Epics, as well as in the later philosophical works

 we do not find any systematic work on materialism, nor any organized school of followers as the other philosophical schools possess. 

But almost every work of the other schools states, for refutation, the materialistic views. Our knowledge of Indian materialism is chiefly based on these."

A main issue of Carvaka was, that all metaphysical ideas were only deductions from inferences, not from sensory experience.

Therefore, Cārvāka philosophy denied metaphysical concepts like reincarnation, extracorporeal soul, efficacy of religious rites, 

other worlds, like heaven and hell, fate and accumulation of merit or demerit through the performance of certain actions.

Cārvāka   philosophy also rejected the use of supernatural causes to describe natural phenomena. To them all natural phenomena was produced spontaneously from the inherent nature of things.

These are thoughts from thousands of years ago. They were not popular then. Compare this with the fact that we now live in a world dominated by science….

The Discussion

[13:35] herman Bergson: Thank you..^_^

[13:36] Nectanebus: nice stuff :)

[13:36] CONNIE Eichel: :)

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: indeed

[13:37] herman Bergson winks at CONNIE

[13:37] CONNIE Eichel winks back

[13:37] herman Bergson: What fascinates me is this materialism....

[13:37] herman Bergson: especially when you compare it to our present situation

[13:37] Nectanebus: Nice that you touch on Carvaka and Ajivika. Those two don't often see the light of day. Obviously I'm one for Ajivika more so heh

[13:38] CONNIE Eichel: :)

[13:38] herman Bergson: Ajvika isnt a 100% materialist philosophy....

[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: it makes one wonder why both sides must deny the other instead of concentrating on their views and developing that

[13:38] oola Neruda: good point, Ciska

[13:39] herman Bergson: I think there is a legitimate reason for that Ciska :-)

[13:39] herman Bergson: The point is....

[13:39] Nectanebus: People tend to "other" at the drop of a hate ;)

[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: it often seems sooo useless... to put so much energy in something you can't really know

[13:39] herman Bergson: when you hold certain views, you derive certain claims from it....

[13:39] herman Bergson: for instance....

[13:40] herman Bergson: all kinds of religions have certain claims regarding how the world should look like based on their private knowledge based on private revelations

[13:41] herman Bergson: IIt is justified to question such claims and question the sources of knowledge on which they are based

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: well for materialism thats the same isn't it?

[13:41] Nectanebus: I'd say it's valid to question everything constantly.

[13:42] vladimir Hoxley: Has materialism/naturalism always been a minority view?

[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: yepp

[13:42] oola Neruda: i suppose when they insist that everyone adheres to their "rules"

[13:42] herman Bergson: yes...it is....

[13:42] herman Bergson: and a materialist points at results from science....scientific knowledge...

[13:42] herman Bergson: which can be tested with public methods

[13:43] Nectanebus: I think determinism vs free will is about as back and forth as materialism vs liminalism (sic)

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: in materialism we do have constant change and new views as well which alter and add to our views from materialism up to now.

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: yes - but their knowledge is a temporary as well herman

[13:43] herman Bergson: I agree Ciska...

[13:43] herman Bergson: except that there is one constant....

[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ok

[13:44] herman Bergson: the rejection of unprovable supernatural entities for instance

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: well

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: for a scientist its an unproven supernatural entity until it has a name and he can put it in his / her science language

[13:45] vladimir Hoxley: I think it is important to distinguish between materialism and naturalism

[13:45] Nectanebus: inb4scientist that turn christian

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: good point vladimir

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:46] Nectanebus: Also, I'm not a fan of the church of Dawkins nor the "god of the gaps" theory. I think "science" and "religion" need to stop bickering.

[13:46] herman Bergson: I took them here as synonymous Vladimir....

[13:46] bombadail: materialists are okay with accepting the world as a puzzle ...the other side with supernatural things that are by definition beyond our reach...that is kind of a comforting shift in responsibility to a device like a god....in this way when you have a god you are no longer fully responsible and that is a relief to many

[13:46] Nectanebus: Neither have all the answers yet.

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: same here nectanebus

[13:47] vladimir Hoxley: The reason I think they aren't is that you could have a naturalist theory of mind that wasnt materialist

[13:47] Ciska Riverstone: mh i do not think thats true Bombadail - when it is "natural law" thats when i do not have any responsibilities

[13:48] vladimir Hoxley: you can be a dualist and still a naturalist

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: a lot of gods have a lot of demand on humans to act responsible without definingt it exactly

[13:48] bombadail: natural laws are not set in stone ciska that's just an expression ...it's always just a theory that works in the moment

[13:48] herman Bergson: I know Vladimir, but that leads to a too complex discussion, I am afraid...

[13:48] Nectanebus: Also, science has a problem with any small amount of allegory in any religious text. Don't get me started on lotus feet...

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: yes - well religions too ;)

[13:49] bombadail: demands by god still transfer responsibility to the gods that know

[13:49] vladimir Hoxley: ok herman

[13:50] Bejiita Imako: science vs religion is a tricky subject

[13:50] herman Bergson: May point still is that people dirive authority to act, and see it as justified to do so based on these references to supernatural beings...

[13:50] bombadail: but of course it's not the gods that made the rules but other people that recognized most people prefer not to be responsible or could be taught to not believe in their own ability to discern things

[13:50] herman Bergson: Like muslims kill in the name of their Allah....and call themselves martyr when they die in the process

[13:51] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:51] Nectanebus: But belief in science is about as stable as religious belief. I mean, genetics and metaphysics alone shift on a decade-ly basis, and medicine? Might as well snort tiger bones...

[13:51] herman Bergson: So we HAVE to question these claims...like Carvaka philosophy already did thousands of years ago

[13:51] vladimir Hoxley: That's not just a property of religion Herman

[13:51] Bejiita Imako: just creating more violence and justify it with religion

[13:52] Bejiita Imako: blowing p the entire planet

[13:52] Bejiita Imako: up

[13:52] bombadail: it's pretty clear that gods are an artifice used by people that want to make the rules...or think they know better and use gods as a device to control others

[13:52] herman Bergson: No Vladimir....a property of any ideology...I know...

[13:52] Nectanebus: ITT: "stop talking, I'm right"- everyone. Good thread!

[13:53] herman Bergson: What do you mean Nectanebus?

[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: bombadail - you can use science the same way ... its really a matter of doing it

[13:53] Nectanebus: People seem to be rather forthright in their opines today heheh

[13:53] herman Bergson: Of course this is a debate as old as mankind :-))

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: but science is true facts

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: no supernatural stuff

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: here you really prove things

[13:54] Bejiita Imako: that they are real

[13:54] WAINSCOT reports: Beertje Beaumont is on your land now!

[13:54] bombadail: ciska you can't at all use science the same way...there are no secret special communications to god that are not available to all in science...

[13:54] oola Neruda: there are people who really do believe in gods and other unseen things

[13:55] vladimir Hoxley: What I find astonishing is people could hold materialist views so long ago, must have been very hard to do based on what they saw as the evidence around them to the contrary

[13:55] herman Bergson: It was by inference Vladimir.....

[13:55] herman Bergson: They managed to reason and conclude to atomism....

[13:56] herman Bergson: amazing....

[13:56] Nectanebus: Also, as far as "no lines to god" goes, it depends on your system. Modern tantric process is looking at interesting developments in science. I'll let you google-fu it :)

[13:56] .: Beertje :.: Goodevening ㋡

[13:56] Nectanebus: weyhey erryone's late

[13:56] herman Bergson: the Indian philosophers did...the Greek did..and we did in physics

[13:56] Corronach: :)

[13:57] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:57] herman Bergson: For some reason we have the belief that reality canbe reduced to the smallest particles....

[13:57] vladimir Hoxley: but almost all of our early physicists were still theists I think. Amazing how radical they could be so long ago

[13:58] bombadail: is materialism reductionist?

[13:58] Nectanebus: Einstein was christian IIRC, lots of scientists are. Science still hasn't disproven half the stuff the papers pretend it has.

[13:58] Nectanebus: and yeah, reductio ad absurdum (occam's razor)

[13:58] bombadail: combine E=MC^2 with materialism and add in Quantum theory...

[13:59] herman Bergson: Neither has proven the other party anything else Nectanebus :-))

[13:59] bombadail: Energy and matter are two forms of the same thing

[13:59] Aarrabella: Einstein a christian? lol rly?

[13:59] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:59] Aarrabella: he was a self declared agnostic

[13:59] vladimir Hoxley: He certainly wasnt - he stated his god was like spinozas

[14:00] Nectanebus: I can't remember off hand, it was one of the biggies

[14:00] herman Bergson: Ahh Spinoza....interesting subject indeed!

[14:00] Nectanebus: I'll look it up heh

[14:00] bombadail: so a true materialist understands that the atom idea was a crude best first guess....

[14:00] herman Bergson: Einstein could have chosen him indeed

[14:01] herman Bergson: maybe yes, Bombadail....yet funny how we guessed right :-))

[14:01] bombadail: guessed what right ...lost train of thought

[14:01] vladimir Hoxley: got to go, glad I came by again

[14:01] Bejiita Imako: bye vlad

[14:01] herman Bergson: guessed that the atom was the ultimate thing :-)

[14:02] Ciska Riverstone: bye vladimir

[14:02] Nectanebus: bye vlad

[14:02] herman Bergson: thnx for your participation Vladimir

[14:02] Bejiita Imako: atom mean undividuable but with nuclear reactors and particle accelerators that term is not true anymore

[14:02] bombadail: since energy and matter are equivalents....you no longer search for some fundemental particle....science already knows this

[14:02] Bejiita Imako: cause they showed that you CAN split atoms

[14:03] Nectanebus: got to go, soup. see you all next time

[14:03] Bejiita Imako: and now we chase smaller and smaller stuff

[14:03] Bejiita Imako: in the LHC and similar

[14:03] Bejiita Imako: to get to the core of it all

[14:03] herman Bergson: Well...we'll leave that to the physicists :-))

[14:03] Bejiita Imako: how do the world REALLY work

[14:04] Aarrabella: that's the problem with philosophy, it is directly dependent on science, otherwise it is just gibberish

[14:04] herman Bergson: I do not agree Aarabella.....

[14:04] bombadail: but we already know there is no reduction of material to some fundamental stuff...the way I understand modern science

[14:04] herman Bergson: science is the result of philosophy....not visa versa

[14:05] Aarrabella: I do not believe so, curiosity starts both, science is the proper explanation whilst philosophy tries to get those conclusions and work a system around them

[14:06] herman Bergson: In the beginning philosophers were the astronomers trying to explain the universe.....

[14:06] herman Bergson: till we found definite answers to certain questions....

[14:06] herman Bergson: such questions then became the core of science

[14:07] herman Bergson: and such was the case in all fields of human knowledge

[14:07] Bejiita Imako: ah

[14:07] Aarrabella: they were scientists without knowing maybe:) but maybe it is philosophy that established the rigorosity of its method

[14:07] Bejiita Imako: seems logical

[14:07] Bejiita Imako: all start with philosophy and then we research about it

[14:07] Bejiita Imako: sort of

[14:08] herman Bergson: the esoteric alchemists were predecessors of chemistry as a science....

[14:08] Aarrabella: like the chicken and the egg :)

[14:08] herman Bergson: not at all

[14:08] Bejiita Imako: a classic one ㋡

[14:08] Dag: well I think that with the developments in the quantum physics , science and philosophy should get closer to each other

[14:08] Aarrabella: philosophy and science have always been close to each other, otherwise it would have been called religion ^^

[14:09] herman Bergson: yes Daggash, as has happened in neuroscience already

[14:09] herman Bergson: The mind body problem isn’t solved .....

[14:09] herman Bergson: But a lot of smaller issues are in neuroscience

[14:10] bombadail: science is just a label as is philosophy....don't get too attached...what you actually do and discover is what matters...but theses day it seems philosophy would be those that think about what has been discovered and those thoughts might spurn an experimental scientist to investigate something...it's a feedback loop

[14:10] Aarrabella: well from the little I know from my philosophy classes is that philosophy doesnt answer questions, it just teaches us how to ask questions correctly

[14:10] Aarrabella: philosophy* geez, my typing

[14:11] Aarrabella: so it doesn’t solve problems either, maths does :)

[14:11] herman Bergson: A lot of questions belonged to the realm of philosophy before they were answered and moved into the realm of science because of that

[14:11] Aarrabella: it just put the problem in an educated manner :)

[14:11] oola Neruda: they are close... Truth, Beauty... etc... smiles

[14:11] Aarrabella: well lets not dwell on the past when our knowledge was poor

[14:11] Aarrabella: we know better now :)

[14:12] herman Bergson: For Pythagoras math was philosophy...not how we use it now

[14:12] Bejiita Imako: ah

[14:13] herman Bergson: Well....a lot of issues to think about, I would say....

[14:13] Bejiita Imako: yes i guess so ㋡

[14:13] Bejiita Imako: its interesting for sure

[14:13] herman Bergson: So…thank you all for your brilliant participation today....:-)

[14:13] Dag: thanks again herman

[14:13] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[14:13] Aarrabella: yeah, sorry I arrived late, will try to come in time next time :)

[14:13] herman Bergson: Class dismissed...^_^

[14:13] Corronach: thanks herman

[14:13] Dag: bye all

[14:14] Aarrabella: was a pleasure

[14:14] oola Neruda: baiee all

[14:14] Ciska Riverstone: have a great day /night everyone ㋡

[14:14] herman Bergson: Keep an eye on the clock...Europe and the US are not in sync anymore!!!

[14:14] CONNIE Eichel: lovely time :)

[14:14] CONNIE Eichel: yes, its a mess :)

[14:14] CONNIE Eichel: bye bye all, kisses :)

[14:14] .: Beertje :.: sorry for being late..I didn't know that

[14:14] herman Bergson: As usual each year CONNIE ^_^

[14:15] CONNIE Eichel: yes, hehe

[14:15] CONNIE Eichel: bye bye :)

[14:15] herman Bergson: But this is more or less the first time we yet got a group together

[14:15] Aarrabella: may I add you to my FL , Herman?

[14:15] herman Bergson: Sure Aarabella ^_^

[14:15] Aarrabella: ty :)

[14:16] .: Beertje :.: have a goodnight everyone

[14:16] Bejiita Imako: cu soon

[14:16] herman Bergson: Always handy to have a philosopher in your phonebook :-))

[14:16] Bejiita Imako: bye¨

[14:16] Bejiita Imako: i guess so

[14:16] Aarrabella: I am interested in a class on Daniel Dennett sometime :)

[14:17] Aarrabella: phil of mind would be a great topic

[14:17] herman Bergson: Interesting idea Aarabella

[14:17] herman Bergson: Has been a great topic here in 114 lectures already

[14:17] Aarrabella: ah great, shame I never attended, still new in SL :)

[14:18] Bejiita Imako: always great this

[14:18] herman Bergson: First lecture  of this class was September 2007

[14:18] Aarrabella: nice

[14:18] herman Bergson: Past 500 now :-))

[14:18] Aarrabella: well done, that's quite an accomplishment

[14:19] Bejiita Imako: many lessons it have been

[14:19] herman Bergson: took me more than 5 years indeed ^_^

[14:19] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[14:19] Aarrabella: :)

512: Indian epistemology and logic

When we look at the development of the mind from birth, we see that it goes through distinctive stages. The first thing you discover is that there is you and an external reality which is not you.

The second stage is that you have no clue what this outside reality is, how it works, what it does, except that you experience that is does all kinds of things.

You come to the conclusion that it all is pure magic. You move and a tree in the wind moves too. So it lives like you live….with a mind. When you are three years old, everything lives and feels, from teddybear to goblin.

There seems to be a parallel in the development of the mind of the homo sapiens. When he experienced consciousness and his relation with an external reality, he didn’t understand and concluded to what we now call animism. The world is a living thing like he himself was.

Then he invents gods and all knowledge about the gods and the world is revealed. A next step could be that these revelations are written down in a book  and so on.

But the next step is that he begins to wonder how he really can KNOW things and then epistemology is born. And it is amazing to see how philosophy thus has developed.

That is what happened in India. Some began to question these gods and revelations as the true way to obtain knowledge.

Thus epistemology became primary in the sense that it must be engaged in prior to attempting any other philosophical endevour.

There is, however, a difference.  In Western philosophy truth and falsity are usually ascribed to statements, propositions, or beliefs. In the Indian tradition truth and falsity are ascribed to a cognition or an awareness

The limits of one’s metaphysical claims are always inviolably set by the parameters established by one’s epistemology. Before one can make claims, one must establish the basis on which such claims can be proven and justified. 

The Indians went so far as to concede, that if one wishes to debate with an opponent, one must first find a common epistemological ground upon which to argue. 

Failing that, no meaningful debate can take place. Since one’s ontology, which is one’s theory about what exists, depends on what one’s epistemology makes allowable, 

many Indian schools tried to include things in their list of valid means of knowledge, that would facilitate their claims. 

Hindus, for instance, considered their Scriptures to be valid means of knowledge, but other Indians, such as Buddhists and Jains, rejected the authority of the Hindu Scriptures. 

Therefore, if a Hindu debated with a Buddhist or Jain, he or she could not appeal to the authority of Hindu Scriptures, but had to find common epistemological ground. 

In the case of Buddhism that would be perception and inference; in the case of Jainism, it would only be inference. 

All schools except Jains accepted perception as a valid means of knowledge, meaning that sensory knowledge is valid, if qualified as non-erroneous or non-hallucinatory. 

What is not presently observed but is in principle observable can be known by inference. Inference or deduction, therefor, were an important matter.

This implies that the Indian philosophers not only wondered about the question, how can I KNOW, but also, if in a debate we come to a conclusion, how do I know it is a necessary conclusion.

One text dating from the third century BCE and important to tracing the development of logic in classical India is a Buddhist work, which exhibits awareness of the fact that the form of argument is crucial to its being good.

In the Caraka-samhita, a medical text (300 - 500 BC),  is found in a passage, which defines an argument to have five parts: the proposition (pratijña ), the ground or reason (hetu ), the corroboration (drótanta ), the application (upanaya ), and the conclusion (nigamana ).

This could be an example:

Proposition    : The mind is not eternal

Ground          : because it is detectable by the senses

Corroberation: It is like a pot

Application    :  As a pot is detectable by the senses, 

                        and is non eternal, so is the mind 

                        detectable by the senses.

Conclusion    : Therefore, the mind is not eternal

It is amazing to see, how thousands of years ago the homo sapiens already tried to figure out what goes on in his mind.

And if you then realize, that we have computers now………

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

From Africa to Zen, R.C. Solomon & K.M. Higgins

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

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html