Whence Then is Evil?

Re: # 112

Kaalchakra

(((((This Mr. Sartre seems like a rootless kind of a guy, like our brother paarthab - a little better than sufis and Soroushs, but not by much.)))))

LOL....yap...well that`s exactly what he himself claims to be i.e. rootless. Actually he is the most famous existentialist of 20th centaury at least in masses (philosophers take Kierkegaard more seriously).....He actually developed his thesis on the basis `’ Merleau ponty’s phenomenological reductionism. Phenomenology is an anti-system philosophical movement which emerged in late 19th century and early 20th century. It was also deeply influenced by two world wars. It was basically a reaction against the Hegel’s pan-rationalism (philosophical sense).

You are right…some people consider it a bit close to eastern Sufism. Which I think a bit of oversimplification…however I won’t deny its ‘temperamental’ resemblance to Sufism…..The reason it’s difficult to give any judgment about this movement is its anti-system approach. You can interpret it in whatever way you like and that precisely an existentialist say…. He won’t go mad if he sees you raping his philosophy. It emphasize on individual’s freedom from any system (scientific or philosophical and social) ….and perhaps that’s the reason why Mr rhh was saying that logic fails and reason can solve these problems and Sartre is right….blah….blah.


A few years ago I was a staunch existentialist. I would even live like an existentialist, completely independent of any system and would enjoy being anti-social…etc…Anyhow.

Philosopher don`t call this miserable sob ``sahib``. He is a lost, blind soul who censors articles that go contrary to his dimwit, pseudoplagirized, tape recorderesque articles. Allah has left him to wander blindly in his BS, let him be....

Re: # 114Masadi



Masadi said;…

<<<<>>>


Mr. Masadi its your own opinion. I am not interested in getting my posts deleted.
I Have sympathy with you. I see absolutely no problem with your posts. I think everybody has got the right to say whatever he wants. The hypocrisy of chowk staff is so obvious to every interacter here. A buffoon like Hamid gets away with all kind of rubbish just because his threads have anti-Islamic rhetoric . On chowk, writing against America and liberal democracy is considered blasphemous. I have seen many interacts here which are much better than the articles published on this great website.


Masadi says<<<<>>>>



Well seriously I think Mr Gil is not as dishonest person intellectually as pervez hoodbhoy. Though I think there are some serious gaps in Gill’s scholarships but after reading most of his articles I have got the feeling that he is ready to learn and don’t intentionally try to hide the truth e.g. on women’s issue ‘liberals’ of our country deliberately try to undermine contribution of Islam. Even though every educated person knows that Islam gave some very obvious rights to women. Gill would not do that. He would accept if he comes across anything like that. He sounds to me an agnostic not an atheist. Nor does he seem to be undermining anything like a ‘’liberal pragmatist’’ who even tells lie to counter religious thinking(pervez hoodbhoy…not that he knows something ‘’secret’’ but whatever he even knows to be false of some irreligious theory he would deliberately tell lie on T.V to let religion and religious people down.))) I don’t consider Gill in that category (I don’t have long experience but that’s what I think). I am literally sick of that hypocrite (pervez).


I don’t have beef against any agnostic as long as he is sincere in his intellectual pursuits. You know even according to the Quran….its not unbelievers who are dumb and deaf, its evil people and the people who have material pursuits even if they are religious. The Glorious Quran’ s epistemology gives utmost importance to this sincerity and purification of heart in the intellectual journey. For Quran, morally and intellectual corrupt and wicked can never be able to comprehend the ultimate truth. Quran itself give methodology to comprehend divine reality a methodology which no lexicographical meanings of language understand. This is methodology of following the path of the glorious Quran…It promises you the true knowledge. The path that shows you light in the illusion of appearance. It’s a surprise that atheists are not ready to give it a go at least once. That’s the hidden wickedness Quran talks about on innumerable places.


But I can understand the dilemma of people like Gill. I myself have been a staunch atheist. Even they have pick and choose approach and a kind of ‘’dogmatic belief’’ in atheism and the methodology they follow. Gill and company is unaware of the fact that its impossible to understand religious philosophy without living in it and without devolving a perspective based on religion’s own epistemology just like a scientist works in laboratory and find implicit values and norms in the real development of science.

Gill ji….at least go inside the laboratory of religion if you really have true quest of knowledge.

Re: # 114

Masadi said;…

(((((((Philosopher don`t call this miserable sob ``sahib``)))))


Mr. Masadi its your own opinion. I am not interested in getting my posts deleted. I Have sympathy with you. I see absolutely no problem with your posts. I think everybody has got the right to say whatever he wants. The hypocrisy of chowk staff is so obvious to every interacter here. A buffoon like Hamid gets away with all kind of rubbish just because his threads have anti-Islamic rhetoric . On chowk, writing against America and liberal democracy is considered blasphemous. I have seen many interacts here which are much better than the articles published on this great website.


Masadi says((((He is a lost, blind soul who censors articles that go contrary to his dimwit, pseudoplagirized, tape recorderesque articles. Allah has left him to wander blindly in his BS, let him be)))))



Well seriously I think Mr Gil is not as dishonest person intellectually as pervez hoodbhoy. Though I think there are some serious gaps in Gill’s scholarships but after reading most of his articles I have got the feeling that he is ready to learn and don’t intentionally try to hide the truth e.g. on women’s issue ‘liberals’ of our country deliberately try to undermine contribution of Islam. Even though every educated person knows that Islam gave some very obvious rights to women. Gill would not do that. He would accept if he comes across anything like that. He sounds to me an agnostic not an atheist. Nor does he seem to be undermining anything like a ‘’liberal pragmatist’’ who even tells lie to counter religious thinking(pervez hoodbhoy…not that he knows something ‘’secret’’ but whatever he even knows to be false of some irreligious theory he would deliberately tell lie on T.V to let religion and religious people down.))) I don’t consider Gill in that category (I don’t have long experience but that’s what I think). I am literally sick of that hypocrite (pervez).


I don’t have beef against any agnostic as long as he is sincere in his intellectual pursuits. You know even according to the Quran….its not unbelievers who are dumb and deaf, its evil people and the people who have material pursuits even if they are religious. The Glorious Quran’ s epistemology gives utmost importance to this sincerity and purification of heart in the intellectual journey. For Quran, morally and intellectual corrupt and wicked can never be able to comprehend the ultimate truth. Quran itself give methodology to comprehend divine reality a methodology which no lexicographical meanings of language understand. This is methodology of following the path of the glorious Quran…It promises you the true knowledge. The path that shows you light in the illusion of appearance. It’s a surprise that atheists are not ready to give it a go at least once. That’s the hidden wickedness Quran talks about on innumerable places.


But I can understand the dilemma of people like Gill. I myself have been a staunch atheist. Even they have pick and choose approach and a kind of ‘’dogmatic belief’’ in atheism and the methodology they follow. Gill and company is unaware of the fact that its impossible to understand religious philosophy without living in it and without devolving a perspective based on religion’s own epistemology just like a scientist works in laboratory and find implicit values and norms in the real development of science.

Gill ji….at least go inside the laboratory of religion if you really have true quest of knowledge.

It is the monotheism (Unity of command as Mush would put it) which created this problem, otherwise no such problem existed under the concept of bi-theism wherein Ahriman represented the evil and Yazdan, the good. Quran, being an advocate of Monotheism, does proclaim ``Wa kherihi, wa sharrehi`` (Good and evil are both from Him). This unity of command was also advocated by Changez khan who used to proclaim that since there is only one God in heaven there must be a single ruler on earth. Paradoxically the people claiming to believe in oneness of God received the brunt of his evil side as they are subject even today of this unity of command.

To not think of anything is metaphysics enough.

What do I think of the world?
Who knows what I think of it!
If I weren’t well then I’d think about it.

What’s my idea about matter?
What’s my opinion about causes and effects?
What are my thoughts on God and soul
And the creation of the world?
I don’t know. To think about such things would be to shut my eyes
And not think. It would be to close the curtains
Of my windows (which, however, has no curtains).

FERNANDO PESSOA

To think about God is to disobey God,
Since God wanted us not to know him,
Which is why he didn’t reveal himself to us…

Let’s be simple and calm,
Like the trees and streams,
And God will love us, making us
Us even as the trees are trees
And the streams are streams,
And will give us greenness in the spring, which is its season,
And a river to go to when we end…
And he’ll give us nothing more, since to give us more would make us less us.

FERNANDO PESSOA

Samar

Re: # 118

samar ji

wonderful.....Thanx for sharing..

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Due to cOmputer problems, I could not enter in the discussion earlier. Congratulations, Gill Sahab, for bringinging another unpopular, among Muslims, but deep subject to fore.

Your last para:“Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological God-talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.”
I agree with. But the new way HAS been pointed out 2000 years before Buddha and Gandhi ji in India.

BUT WILL THE WORLD HEED AND ACT RATIONALLY?

REGARDING #120: WHAT HAPPENMED TO YOU ECHOBOOM?

Regarding #8, #120, I agree with the censors.

teshah writes <<< This unity of command was also advocated by Changez khan....>>

It was also advocated by Einstein whose fundamental postulate of the special theory of relativity, states this unity of law phenomena in nature. Unity of command is a fact of nature, though its generalization to himself as Changez did amounts to idolatory; there is absolutely no problem in monotheism regarding ``evil``, Gill has skirted around, avoiding my posts and not being able to answer them, which says quite a bit about how stumped he is. Not only does nature not reveal two gods one for good and one for evil, putting labels of good and evil (absolute) automatically assings grades of superior and inferior, bringing down the whole system of two gods to naught, the evil might claim ``good`` according to its nature and claim the ``good`` evil and so on...

masadi sahib`s last sentence seems very important. IF evil actually exists, it certainly will claim goodness for itself. Evil gains nothing by being open about or announcing its evil to the world.

Inversion of the language (in one of my ancient ilogs I wondered about it), where night becomes day, freedom becomes slavery, and slavery becomes freedom, etc MUST be integral part of the evil. Although evil itself may not be a bad thing...it may even be good by its own linguistic inversion.

Re: # 124Masadi
((((Not only does nature not reveal two gods one for good and one for evil, putting labels of good and evil (absolute) automatically assings grades of superior and inferior, bringing down the whole system of two gods to naught, the evil might claim ``good`` according to its nature and claim the ``good`` evil and so on...))))

Very well said...;

More later.

Re: # 126Masadi

That is the point i have been trying to explain in my debate with Gill that ``good`` is not a logical abstraction by any means even if logic were relevant here on these issues.
Omnipotence is ``logical abstraction`` regardless of the relevance (or even validity) of logic, for omnipotence has absolute definition for every one regardless of one`s own inclination and temperament.

````Good`` and ``evil`` on the other hand are relative as Masadi has mentioned. Gill has been calling them ``attributes`` however; technically they don`t qualify to be attributes. .they are the `MODES` of SUBSTANCE because they have derivative value. They (modes) are derived from the attributes and can be derived in infinite numbers from attributes. Religion has mentioned these `MODES and attributes in countable quantity. Though at the same time Quran says that ````there is nothing like HIM``. these modes and attributes are only to make divine reality for humans.

So debate of contradiction is meaningless on more grounds than one. I challenge anybody here to show me that these two statements..;

God is omnipotent
God is good
are contradictory on the ground of the existence of evil in the world. Both statements have different predicate therefore any debate regarding contradiction is an exercise in futility.

Boy... how do i tell you guys that these are obvious and basic things and every serious student of philosophy knows that....

the problem of evil within the framework of religion arises because of ignoring the fact that religion talks about two universes of discourse, one material or temporary world and other hereafter? Now whether hereafter actually exits or not, you have to take it into account if you are analyzing the ``internal coherence`` and consistency of religion, for if you claim religious assertion to be contradictory you will have to show it by taking all concepts of religion into account and only than can you apply Logic.

According to the Quran ``latter is always better than the former`` so for Quran world is temporary and `evil` is nothing but only a ``possibility``. In this way ``death`` which looks an evil to agnostic mind, is the way to find eternal peace. So the the question of evil becomes meaningless even in ‘’non-logical’’ way.

Good one, philosopher. Christianity doesn`t get those basic facts. That`s why, it is not a complete religion in the sense that Islam is.

To grasp the philosophical framework better, strictly within it (that means, without brining in extraneous elements, assumptions etc.), will one be able to/ or how can one distinguish between the following two sets of statements?:

[God is omnipotent.
God is good.]

and

[Good is omnipotent.
God is evil.]

Can these be used interchangeably? Just because good exists, it does not prove that God is not evil.

---

Just trying to understand the framework by playing with it a little, philo :)